By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Mark Spitznagel, Project Syndicate
For the American economy – and for many other developed economies – the elephant in the room is the amount of money paid to bankers over the last five years. In the United States, the sum stands at an astounding $2.2 trillion. Extrapolating over the coming decade, the numbers would approach $5 trillion, an amount vastly larger than what both President Barack Obama’s administration and his Republican opponents seem willing to cut from further government deficits.
That $5 trillion dollars is not money invested in building roads, schools and other long-term projects, but is directly transferred from the American economy to the personal accounts of bank executives and employees. Such transfers represent as cunning a tax on everyone else as one can imagine. It feels quite iniquitous that bankers, having helped cause today’s financial and economic troubles, are the only class that is not suffering from them – and in many cases are actually benefiting.
Mainstream megabanks are puzzling in many respects. It is (now) no secret that they have operated so far as large sophisticated compensation schemes, masking probabilities of low-risk, high-impact “Black Swan” events and benefiting from the free backstop of implicit public guarantees. Excessive leverage, rather than skills, can be seen as the source of their resulting profits, which then flow disproportionately to employees, and of their sometimes-massive losses, which are borne by shareholders and taxpayers.
In other words, banks take risks, get paid for the upside, and then transfer the downside to shareholders, taxpayers, and even retirees. In order to rescue the banking system, the Federal Reserve, for example, put interest rates at artificially low levels; as was disclosed recently, it also has provided secret loans of $1.2 trillion to banks. The main effect so far has been to help bankers generate bonuses (rather than attract borrowers) by hiding exposures.
Taxpayers end up paying for these exposures, as do retirees and others who rely on returns from their savings. Moreover, low-interest-rate policies transfer inflation risk to all savers – and to future generations. Perhaps the greatest insult to taxpayers, then, is that bankers’ compensation last year was back at its pre-crisis level.
Of course, before being bailed out by governments, banks had never made any return in their history, assuming that their assets are properly marked to market. Nor should they produce any return in the long run, as their business model remains identical to what it was before, with only cosmetic modifications concerning trading risks.
So the facts are clear. But, as individual taxpayers, we are helpless, because we do not control outcomes, owing to the concerted efforts of lobbyists, or, worse, economic policymakers. Our subsidizing of bank managers and executives is completely involuntary.
But the puzzle represents an even bigger elephant. Why does any investment manager buy the stocks of banks that pay out very large portions of their earnings to their employees?
The promise of replicating past returns cannot be the reason, given the inadequacy of those returns. In fact, filtering out stocks in accordance with payouts would have lowered the draw-downs on investment in the financial sector by well over half over the past 20 years, with no loss in returns.
Why do portfolio and pension-fund managers hope to receive impunity from their investors? Isn’t it obvious to investors that they are voluntarily transferring their clients’ funds to the pockets of bankers? Aren’t fund managers violating both fiduciary responsibilities and moral rules? Are they missing the only opportunity we have to discipline the banks and force them to compete for responsible risk-taking?
It is hard to understand why the market mechanism does not eliminate such questions. A well-functioning market would produce outcomes that favor banks with the right exposures, the right compensation schemes, the right risk-sharing, and therefore the right corporate governance.
One may wonder: If investment managers and their clients don’t receive high returns on bank stocks, as they would if they were profiting from bankers’ externalization of risk onto taxpayers, why do they hold them at all? The answer is the so-called “beta”: banks represent a large share of the S&P 500, and managers need to be invested in them.
We don’t believe that regulation is a panacea for this state of affairs. The largest, most sophisticated banks have become expert at remaining one step ahead of regulators – constantly creating complex financial products and derivatives that skirt the letter of the rules. In these circumstances, more complicated regulations merely mean more billable hours for lawyers, more income for regulators switching sides, and more profits for derivatives traders.
Investment managers have a moral and professional responsibility to play their role in bringing some discipline into the banking system. Their first step should be to separate banks according to their compensation criteria.
Investors have used ethical grounds in the past – excluding, say, tobacco companies or corporations abetting apartheid in South Africa – and have been successful in generating pressure on the underlying stocks. Investing in banks constitutes a double breach – ethical and professional. Investors, and the rest of us, would be much better off if these funds flowed to more productive companies, perhaps with an amount equivalent to what would be transferred to bankers’ bonuses redirected to well-managed charities.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Mark Spitznagel. Copyright, Project Syndicate, 2011.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Not only Elephant in the room, but also fat belly, fat a** and fat wallets in the room.
These Elephants they let ordinarily Americans to spill their blood for them in the WAR ZONE while they farts in difficult times, comfortably.
You know why, we must change the rules to serve Americans Militarily by turn. When their turn comes, it is good. At least they will shape-up.
This makes me want to kill people. I mean $5 trillion dollars over 10 years. I'm dead serious.
If CIA and FBI are reading this, you can expect them knocking on your door soon.
Me too, but they will have a hard time tracing me
the Amazon is big!
Also they will have a hard time If we all stand up, pick up our arms and shout out loud that we don't take it anymore...
Let's take an example from the Arabic countries and free ourselves from our miserable life's and throw the elite in their FEMA camps!
Dear sir,Mark is ironically wright,you have the attention of the law enforcer more so then the scavengers that created this mess,don't be surprise,i am not.
They must serve in Military too, in difficult times.
THANK YOU!
SEPT 17th: OCCUPY WALL STREET!
Earthlings, listen up. I am your God, stupid, not him, your God of Finance. I, as you know ...hadn’d been with you as long; only 700 years since Emperor Kublai Khan started paying paper instead of silver money. Of course scoundrels immediately started to cheat with faked look-alikes but the punishment was sufficient to deter these devious beings to spoil my coming-out party, heard of Death-by-a-Thousand-Cuts.
I was once almost dead, chained by these little rules that they called regulations and destroyed over half of the planet by the halfling who called himself Marx. Devilish wasn't he; the you-know-who compensated for his you-know-what by that gigantic beard. I was then freed by that odd couple, Ron and Margaret; but it was she, I believe, said "can do business" with Dennis just a few steps back, politely, of course.
Sorry to say it, but it is true that I am a fickle god and there had been many upheavals, not only in the land of my origin in the Yuan empire but also in much of the new European ones like that has-been Holy Roman province of the Tulip fields, the kill-all-the-Reds British South Seas, the new-paradigm swamps of the French Mississippi, the Versailles victimized Weimar, and of course the blindly blissful 1929 New York, and the pacified, but-yet-lost-decade Tokyo, not to mention the baht kicked Bangkok.
Well, admit it; you are living in one!
Contrary to common belief, I do not usually strike a touch of anger unannounced. There were some unchained souls like M. Roubini, Shiller, and even this halfling Krugman; all gentlemen of immense intelligence, and almost my ego, surely would have spoiled my next party, had it not been for your, say, l’armour d’argent.
Ah, the causes. It was actually quit simple despite what your weatherman tells you; I naturally live in your economy, which usually has a productive side, and a financial side. Like, some work and put food on the table, and others count it. So long as the two are balanced, the financial side supports the productive side and the productive side puts more demand on the financial side, which creates the wealth, you know, things like that shining suit on your chest, the sleek iPod in your pocket, and even that seedy establishment, you call it the mall, that you frequent.
But unlike me, who is divine, you are only human. Every so often, especially with Ron and Margaret in business, you mistake the shenanigans as “Financial Innovation” – something like “efficient finance” actually produces real wealth by counting it many times. It happens like this. Production gets you feeling rich; you then juice it up by borrowing. Being low in intelligence and high on greed, you are carried away by borrowing so much, until that is, there is nowhere to borrow, only debts to repay, as your losses are also piling up, if you can repay at all. .
But, but, but... This time it's different! You say, you have a New Economy. Of course you do, thanks to me; how convenient I had given these enormous gifts to you of the talented banksters. They came in all falvours, much like your candyman's chocolate, for your pleasure of choosing: your investment banksers, your shadow banksters, your mortgage banksters, your analyst banksters, and your tanned and untanned banksters. In good time, your friendly neighbourhood bankers, if you still remember them, and your scholarly central bankers, you see, are no longer your ally; much now mine and more of his, you know, the one who is denoted 666.
I always had this small column of i-banksters, but this splendid army, I have to thank your Green spinomist, and your weatherman in many a fine season. They gave me the s-banksters, and with their aid, I won over these your-smiling-uncle banksters with huge bonuses and you-know-you-don't-understand giant pay-packages. To make it certain, I make sure they are paid each year-end so I can have my joyous party on year 5. Even your dignified officials, you know the ones you elect, are in my banksters' pockets. How do you think they are elected? Not to mention their Italian white shoes, English hand-tailored pinstripes, and trophy blondes around the elbows.
You know you cannot win, but still tempted to jump in with these NYSE TRAPs; I deliberately stir them up each quarter so you feel you have no choice. With each passing high-and-low, you feel your gut churn and churn, and I just watch on the sidelines with amusement. Just to magnify my drama, I reward your greed with higher-and-higher highs, and of course, when the end comes, I slap that fateful tsunami on your fine behind.
Like all gods, I cannot have mercy. I will have to punish you hard until you are pants down. I remember in 1929, those who feared me jumped and many a widow had been thrown on the streets. This year, there hadn’t been a lot of that, only that little puddle of French red, but still it wasn’t fun. The thing is, if you are illusory thinking you all can get ahead by counting money, instead of producing it, you will be very sorry indeed. Like this year, your economy is really lopsided; so many counting, so few producing, and all are greedy.
It looks like, all over again, nothing is learned. Your weatherman, he was a bean counter, wasn’t he, is telling you that great for your taxes, you will be on it again; it is all very predictable. What is going to happen is just going to be "the same old game of the same people, intoxicated with the same old drug, pushing around the same amount of real money and each taking a same amount of little cut and then pushes it to the next stop". After enough of that go-around, you know there won’t be any cuts left but for the one on your tummy, almost sounds familiar. Oh really, it is not even the same amount of real money, remember you will have to repay your debts. When you are sorry again these more years, don’t say I haven’t told you so.
Bravo, sir, bravo.
We have been warned. If a man does not work he will not eat, thats biblical. The new world of fake economies backed by lazy unproductive people like before will collapse. Problem is that when the fake economy collapses people sell real assets to the bankers for less than they are worth. So these manipulators or teh fake economy get real assets for manipulating fake ones. Where does it end? Modern day slavery.
Indeed, all liabilities to a bank – loans, mortgages etc – can be seen as a modern day serfdom! In the Middle Ages dealing with money were seen as unchristian, therefore only Jews had the licence to do this business.
Globalisation and the information technology have contributed to the immense economic power wielded by banks and also the domino effect, when the financial sector breaks down. The financial products can be sold worldwide and profits be easily transfered within seconds. Wealth can be created in token of shrewd transactions, manipulations and luck.
Its pretty obvious that better regulation is neccesary and more important I think banks need to become "small enough that they can fail".
Dear sir,much more then regulation is needed ,we must have( consequence ) for wrong doing,talking about is a terrible waste of time.
agree 100%, but when you try to regulate them (or anything for that matter) the bobbleheads cry 'socialism' and jamie dimon (ceo of jpmorgan) is publicly crying to obama and bernanke 'why do they hate wall street'.
lets not also forget that financial firms are the BIGGEST contributors to politicians.
How about a tax on the rich! Better yet, how about a real Boston tea party.
@Arthead: Yes, we over here thought of that, too (tax on the rich). The point is, or own (german) "rich" people *WANT* to help our country out – as an example for others, that could act like so! THEY WANT TO PAY TAXES (for "richness") !!!! But, imagine what happened????!??!? "High-finance" politicians like FDP said sthg. like "No no, we don't want that – we would like to see the 'normal' people pay MORE taxes..." THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON OVER HERE!!!!!!! Arghh... could almost cry out loud!!!!!!
Well if they report big bonuses by bank's CEO's this year I would hope everyone will protest and pull there money out of the banks. $5 million Christmas bonus for one person, that is insane (that is how much 5 people save in a lifetime for retirement).
Too Big to fail, we should have let them fail. Let's hope the government lawsuit against 17 banks get's our money back.
I am in the process of taking everything out of BOA and will open a local bank account.
The people are cowards who will not rise up against the tyrrany of corperations!
They own the media and lead you to believe it is the government but it is them!
They are the government, they own us all, rise up and fight back before it is too late!
@loltime: *partly* acknowledged... but how to divide sparrows from the nightingales ("good journalism" from "bad journalism") ? Still remains some hard job to do, sadly...
I can only say NOT A SINGLE BANK IN CANADA NEEDED GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE. Not one Canadian bank failed. Mind you, we wouldn't allow rich bankers to run off with our retirement savings. (I mean, how stupid can you get?) We have regulations like America used to have. Remember FDR? He set things up so this could never happen again. It took a huge amount of stupidity to undo this protection. The end result is the great recession. Who ever deregulated the banks should be behind bars, but that's not the "American way".
We had plenty of 'local banks' in this country that needed no help. They were 'local' because these screwy practices of the big banks are basically what made them big. But we had plenty of banks "doing it right"... they just weren't front page news. Problem was, the rich elite running washington saw their rich elite banker friends getting ready to go under and had to save them cause to them that was the "sky was falling". But again, we had plenty of banks in the US not involved in all these crazy mortgage schemes. The banking system would have survived... just maybe not the banks that employed all their rich donors.
Very good article. As an investor in the markets, this article is an eye-opener for me to relook into the hard-earned amount I may put in some banks (not all) which just make their top managers rich without doing the basic banking function well – meaning keeping deposits of the public safe and making profit only by giving high-quality loans to deserving members of the public.
I do not understand why bankers should be allowed to play with other complex instruments, including the stock-markets – those should be left to specialist investment banking companies whose investors know what they are playing with.
I also think the governments of the world should demand all the bail-out money back at the compounded interest rate (and higher than the regular rate) from the banks they bailed out with taxpayer's money. And going forward, governments of the world should be ready to let at least some of these big banks fail so that the bankers who play with public money feel the effects of their wrongdoings. I also think it is important that the performance of the managers at the top be measured by the boards by including measures as their impact on the public at large and if they cause massive pain consistently (not just one wrong decision but a series of them), then they should be penalised, not rewarded, meaning instead of bonuses, they should be made to pay back the companies they work for. Only the truly capable and honest managers will then take up these positions.
Bankers are committing the worst crime against humanity, and they are happy to be getting away with it. As the ordinary man suffer from the irresponsible greedy, illusional banking practice that brought the global economy to an all time low. The bankers who are solely responsible are enjoying the money they made and the money that was re-giving to them by our cowardic government as bailout. We the people are told to tight our belt for the numerious cut that the stupid government need to make inorder for our hopeless screen-looking-key-board presser bankers to enjoy while we suffer.
Revolution, anyone? What about expropriations? Of course first you have to bring down Obama and elect somebody who will go for the bankers jugular. Need to be enslaved even further? Ok, I´ll check in a couple of years.
@y22nxdf2: Hmmm ... I *CANNOT* imagine that politicians are bad generally, neither yours, nor ours or someone else's ... but maybe, just maybe, REALLY *SOME*, but not *ALL*, "bad media reports", or "bad journalism" WANTS to somehow "discredit" them ... probably because of some kind of "lobbyism" in politics and/or corporations ??!? So, I have to admit to "loltime" ... but, should we really "fight" back ??!? Shouldn't we probably find more "appropriate" ways to stop such things ... if they REALLY are like that? Who REALLY can tell, who does REALLY look "behind the scenes" ... so, who is JUST ??!? "Just" thoughts after thoughts after thoughts ...
The bizarre political offspring named the Tea-Party helps these bankers to continue with their shady schemes since it has put all attention on government spending and not, for whatever reason; probably due to pure ignorance, on Wall Street.
Spot on...
All those good "christians" ih favor of usury. Hypocrites of just ignorant?
What an idiotic thought. The tea party, which supports small government and no handouts, being accused of supporting multi-trillion dollar tax payer money to banks. Correct me if I am wrong but isnt it the democrats who are still calling for more stimulus spending? Wasnt it Obama that appointed Bernanke and Geitner that decided that giving banks money was the right option? Just because you do not understand how the Democrats and RINOs are screwing everybody does not mean that you should blindly believe what they say
Hmmm...
The Tea Party has not come out against the banking cartel which is at the root of the spending problem. It is debt manufactured by this cartel that is the source of the spending and general government largess that exists.
I suggest you read any of a number of books about how the financial "system" works. Maybe "The Creature from Jekyll Island". My hope is that the good intentions of the Tea Party are directed towards the real problem...usury on steriods.
I work for a bank. I honestly do not know where else to go for a mortgage than a bank. I have a decent salary, and I also own some bank stock (which right now isn't worth that much). I hope everything is going to turn out all right for everyone.
There is an easy solution. Design requirements for lower salaries and bonuses for executives, set a limit for how much more CEOs and other executives than the lowest paid employees (in terms of multiples) and then banks that meet those requirements will have access to borrow from the fed. Banks that choose to not to live up to those requirements then have no access and therefor have to borrow from other banks at vastly increased rates to acquire funds. Banks ran with shareholder interests at heart will comply, if none do... then new banks will arise that will be a much better bargain for the consumer to borrow from and the other banks will shrivel and die.
BTW, one law limiting executive pay packages to 20 or 30 times the lowest paid employee in the company would solve this. Simple make impossible to do business in this country and be a bad corporate citizen. Companies want to sell here, they NEED to sell here, then require pay equity within their ranks (of even foreign corps) to have access to our markets.
The crux of the matter is that these people have no skin in the game. When their bet goes well, they win; when it does not, you lose. Contrast this with a small business owner. They may lose their shirt if his/her business goes belly-up– not so with the big bankers.
I am a teacher with a masters degree and I can't find full time work in Boston. Recently I sat next to a banker returning on a flight from Canton, OH to Boston who was complaining about the 50% profit he was making by investing the pensions of a union in Ohio. I'm thinking, "gee I will never be able to retire, while this guy is getting rich on people who really work...and that's not good enough for him"
I hate life...
@Poor Teacher: Well understandable ... but PLEASE KEEP THE FAITH !!!! I, for myself, am trying MY VERY BEST to "keep the faith", too ... my situation is partly comparable to yours ... I ALWAYS had fairly well paid jobs, *NOT* a HUGE income, but an income I could live from/with very well, then the global financial crisis came, two BIG customers fired approx. 500-1000 people of their own altogether because of the crisis, we were somewhat dependent on that customers, so the crisis came to us, too ... now here I am, "back on the streets ... just a man and his will to survive ... it's the eye of the tiger ..." Friend, PLEASE KEEP THE FAITH !!!! Sincerely ...
What a wonderfully inflammatory article full of grand comments to make the masses angry. The reality is banks employ hundreds of thousands of people who don't make huge bonuses and are as middle class as anyone else on main street. The authors also forget the thousands of middle class people who used to work for banks who are still unemployed since 2009 and they ignore the middle class people being laid off now from banks worldwide. What people also miss is one of the authors is a hedge fund manager who's sole job is to steal money from the markets with huge amounts of leverage for the benefit of their billionaire clients!
The real answer is Reagan let the banks become listed stocks which made the managers of the banks risk no longer the owner of the bank. If the bank fails, the bankers no longer care since the managers have been paid in cash.
"Banking" as it is currently practiced is almost entirely parasitic producing nothing of value to the public.
They should be taken over and run as non-profits. If for no other reason than to truncate their access to $ they use to by legislation.
The dominoes in full effect now ...
You Americans realy know how to stuff up the world economy. Just get out of the way and let the rest of the world fix it.
Hmm, seems some could feel "attacked" somehow... for me, it is NOT my intention to "blame" someone for the crisis, just to "analyze" the situation itself... what would it "cost" if someone would "blame" the other??!? it is NOT like that I would want to "blame" someone !! as we are "inter-connected" anyhow, through internet, mhh... why would "they" want us to "blame" each other??!? doesn't progress count??!? Of course, I'm somehow upset about our ALL situation... but it is NEVER to "blame" someone, PLEASE KNOW THAT!!!! "One world – one future" ... or, as a saying: "Geteiltes Leid, es ist halbes Leid." ...
It you want real change VOTE RON PAUL OR DON"T BOTHER VOTING AT ALL
In 2007 PAUL warned us of the impending financial collapse while all other presidential candidates mocked him.
PAUL wants to end the FED and return sound monetary policies.
PAUL will not whisper lies into your ears like other candidates.
Forty years of being lied to by Democrats and Republicans is enough. Its time for real change.
'$5 trillion dollars transferred from the American economy to the personal accounts of bank executives and employees' someone is taken this crab serious. Apparently a lot of people do and I pity them and America in destroying their own country and system.
The central problem here is we are allowing Congress to define the debate. This is not a debate about too much or too little regulation. It should be a debate about good versus bad regulations.
Our laws and regulations are defined by the 535 members of Congress – nearly 500 of which are lawyers. Is surprising they take 3000 pages to write complex regulations that take courts and more lawyers a decade to fully define? Is it surprising they want to continue this practice?
What caused the crash of 2008 was not a lack of regulation – it was theft and fraud; both have been illegal for more than a century. However, because we create loopholes with complex regulations we don't have the time or stomach to enforce common law.
There should be a very simple law – before anyone in congress is allowed to vote on a bill he or she must sign an affidavit stating they have read and UNDERSTAND the bill in full. No signature – no vote.
I don't see what the problem is unless the bankers store the money as cash under their mattress. They will most probably spend it or invest it. If they spend it someone else gets it. If they invest it in a savings account, banks will lend the money to people buying homes or cars or pay interest to depositors. If they invest in corporations that borrow money through bonds or sell shares of stock those corporations hire workers and buy from suppliers and produce products that enhance the standard of living of their customers.
Exactly wel6, no problem at all. You sound light the right person for a little offer that you won't be able to resist.
You give me your money, and I lend half of it to you. For this you pay 20% of your salary to in interest till your lifes end. The other half I will invest in some great scheme. Lets say triple A rated subprime mortages in Las Vegas. If I win, lucky you, if I lose, unfortunately there will need to be a little bailout or else the worls is going to end (no lies), so you will have to pay an additional 10% of your salary in federal taxes to pay for my bailout. It might also require some inflation and FED printing to recapitalize me, so maybe another 10% of your retiree savings.
Thanks a bunch for your consideration
Because Vanguard's and Fidelity's index funds don't allow me to decline to invest in individual stocks. Most investing these days is done by mutual funds, and my Fidelity 401K offers all of 4 large-cap funds, none of which is the "Leave Out Goldman Sachs" fund. I invest in Pimco and I call up Fidelity periodically to see if Pimco is buying any GS bonds. If they were, I'm not sure what my next move would be. It's a pity because Vanguard obviously has enough computing power to subtract out the contribution of individual disinvested stocks from their overall SP500. You should be able to buy the SP500 minus Goldman Sachs in a retirement account, but it's just not possible.
The "socially responsible" funds have managers who decide what's socially responsible and what's not. Those decisions should be devolved to the individual investors.
Bailout plan was the Italian Job.
Nationalization has worked for India. It can work for the USA.
Everyone should be self reliant but should not leave up the morality, cause it is the key to success.And all should respective about all asset of their motherland.
well of course the bankers profited...the own the federal reserve and set it up to benefit themselves. end the con by ending the fed
Very convincing...I'm about to fully agree with you, especially when it comes to the profit sharing plan through which those 5 (oh...3 of them, extrapolated) trillion dollars get into the pockets of shameless employees. One thing though...are you familiar with basic financial reports and stuff? It seems to me that this is meant to inflate the common person...shame on you!
USA – you want a stable banking environment? – bring in the Bank Act that Canada has – One set of rules for your ENTIRE country. No Federal Banks, No State Banks – Just one set of rules for everyone – they would all be on the same playing field. Then make the Fed like the Bank of Canada (your Fed) Independant of Government Interferance and give them the exact same role that the BoC(adjusting Interest Rates to help control Inflation and the Economy). Your economy would start to stabilize on an administration level and would be much simpler for everyone to understand.
And – the next time your banks fail – THEY FAIL – you then sue the Exec's to the poor house for failing to do their job – the job of PROTECTING YOUR MONEY!
Fantastic goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you’re just extremely wonderful. I really like what you’ve acquired here, really like what you’re saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still take care of to keep it smart. I can’t wait to read far more from you. This is really a terrific site.
I am fully read your page topic, ya sure its very relabel blog, this site helpful for all respective popular man.
Whoa, this is a great bail bonds post! I bookmarked your page and added your feed.
Bank cards for people with really poor credit tend to be hard to get, but they can be had using a amount of energy on your part. Today, if you have below standout credit, a person ...Kredyt na Mieszkanie w Anglii
Hello There. I found your weblog the usage of msn. This is a really neatly written article. I'll make sure to bookmark it and come back to learn more of your helpful info. Thank you for the post. I will certainly return.
Undeniably consider that that you said. Your favourite reason appeared to be on the web the simplest factor to take into account of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while other folks consider worries that they plainly do not understand about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the top and also outlined out the entire thing without having side-effects , other folks could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks
Wow, superb weblog format! How long have you been running a blog for? you made blogging glance easy. The overall glance of your web site is magnificent, as smartly as the content material!
We are a gaggle of volunteers and starting a brand new scheme in our community. Your site provided us with helpful info to paintings on. You've performed a formidable job and our entire neighborhood shall be grateful to you.