Sorry, if deregulation was to blame,all financial advisors would do this. The problem is Madoff is dishonest.

"... the financial industry spent $300 million lobbying Congress to deregulate. Astonishingly, Congress went along with it - ..."

I read something like that a lot, but the obvious follow-on never happens. Exactly what regulations where removed and how did that contribute to the current mess?

Totally agree that regulation is not the answer. Regulation may make fraudulent activity more difficult; but it certainly does not make it impossible. But one thing for sure, regulation always empowers the regulators to determine whom to regulate, or how carefully. And for a contributor to the political class, perhaps a benign fanning of the books and accounts will suffice. For people and institutions with the means to invest with Madoff, their first defense was to demand a look into the black box, and then make their investment choices after receiving a response (or in Madoff's case, a non-response).

a kernal of wisdom my father taught me early on, but that admittedly, I didn't fully understand and embrace until I entered the wide world of business to make a living on my own. It is the best piece of advice I'll ever know...

"Believe nothing that you hear and 1/2 of what you see".

And the root of the problem lies with a philosophy that can be summed up in one famous sentence: "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem".

Ronald Wilson Reagan

Republicans blaming Democrats for the bitter fruit of excessive deregulation is like Hollywood blaming Focus on the Family for violence on TV.

I know from experience that government is often stupid and inefficient. I also know from experience that so are large corporations. Necessary evils are still necessary.

Charlie,

The point of laws is not that everyone would act badly without the threat of punishment; the point is that some people will, and require the deterrent.

If you are a parent you know that some children don't have to be told not to hit siblings, and others require constant discipline to learn that lesson. And so on, for thousands of examples.

The issue is not that Madoff is dishonest. The issue is that in any field some people will be, and we need protection from each other.

"Every financial system requires rules and regulations to function. The PR coup of the “free-market economists” is that they managed to convince the American public that only little people need rules."

Of course every system needs rules and regulations, which should be set by market participants. The government setting such rules "crowds out" those who should be setting the rules, the market participants. The government will NEVER do a good a job at setting the rules. Only the players should decide on the rules. This is what true free market advocates believe.

hassle me over $500 worth of stock (they found no wrongdoing and went away). It is nice to know they are on the job protecting the public from daytraders but not from Bernie Madoff.

Regulations beget more regulations. If the government promises to protect investors from shucksters, then money will be thrown wherever the best returns are promised. The point to be taken here is not that government didn't regulate enough, it's that government *will never* be as effective at due diligence as will someone with actual skin in the game; the result of regulation is an assumption of a rubber-stamped, riskless environment - and investor complacency.

In any event, Madoff's numbers smelled to high heaven. People knew this, and invested with him anyway. These "victims" were either greedy or ignorant, which in market lingo means they were on the way to the poorhouse... in federal terms I suppose it means that they're candidates for a bailout.

Thank you!

I'd like to point out no one rips people off more than government. Madoff stole $50,000,000,000. The federal government stole $3,000,000,000,000 in 2008 through taxation in addition to what it steals through seignorage. Today, the net present value of the federal government's liabilities (both funded and unfunded) are around $60,000,000,000,000. This $60 trillion has to be stolen as well. What about caveat emptor and letting people do their own due diligence when deciding who they allow to manage their fortunes? Personal responsibility?

Excellent post, Dean. Thanks.

W

I wouldn't call it lack of regs, more like criminal neglect.
Hedge funds have been allowed to remain totally hidden on the premise "rich people" don't need supervsion of their investments since they should be able to do their own due diligence [ha- ha- hee- hee], and therefore didn't need protection.
Didn't it occur to anyone that protecting the markets from these totally invisible funds might be prudent? BUT, I guess these were the same brilliant folk who invested w/Madoff.
Transparency, as in having to report their very EXISTANCE?!, positions, ect. of the hedge fund world and transparency in the other obscured markets like the CDS mkt. would probably have been enough that we could have avoided most of this implosion in the financial mkts. If reporting positions is too onerous for hedge funds then they needn't exist.

And good comment Dean. I don't think the US will ever learn, however, that capitalism run amok ends up costing the taxpayers more to clean up than regulation would have cost to prevent it.

Madoff was a con man, a criminal. His acts were illegal. Yet, he committed them anyway. Why do you think rafts of new legislation would make any difference? Typical knee-jerk call for more costly ineffective regulation. Speaking of costly ineffective regulation, did Sarbanes-Oxley make any difference to the current meltdown? No. And discussion of SOX' costly failure is conspicuous by its absence.

I lived half my life under regulation and now deregulation.

We never had any of the problems like we do today under regulation.

I diagree with your last sentence. It's not Americans who are afaid it's the quick buck artists that make it sound that way.

I would be the happest man on earth if everthing went back to being regulated so everyone knew what you could or could not do.

I want football without officiating. I like carnage.

Regulation wasn't the problem. Many of the people who invested with Madoff were regulators or people aware of the regulations that existed and the need to have them! Indeed, one fellow sheepishly admitted he KNEW Madoff was running some kind of scam, but felt he had to be in on it! He simply thought it was front-running, not a Ponzi scheme.

Any one of these investors who knew there was no SPIC statement on the accounts, who saw outsized returns for the trades made, who realized that something was amiss SIMPLY AVOIDED THE TRUTH.
The truth ISN'T that deregulation caused this - it's that GREED, avoidance of existing regulation, and lack of enforcement caused this.

Stop with the old saw that more regulation is better protection. That's like saying having laws against murder protect people from getting murdered. Laws don't always protect. They do inflict punishment after the fact, however.

In this case, existing regulation was sufficient. Enforcement and oversight was lacking - particularly on the part of Madoff's own investors! They got what they deserved for their greed! THEY ALLOWED THEMSELVES TO BE SWINDLED. And good for them. Couldn't happen to a better group of people.

That's an absurd argument heard often to justify a current situation. How do you know what fraud might have occured if SOX had not existed? Just as we will never know if higher regulation would have prevented the Madoff fraud. I like my chances better with regulation than not ---- at least some percent of people are prevented from wrong-doing. There will ALWAYS be some element of people who will try to get away with shady things. A productive society needs regulation especially in a global community.

While I agree with your general premise regarding regulation - some is certainly necessary - I do agree with the statement that SOX is not useful, costly, burdensome and does more harm than good.

The time I spend working on SOX related stuff is really wasted, and it's a significant amount of time, up to 1 week per quarter. Basically, all I do is confirm that I'm a rational, reasonable businessperson doing things in a legitimate fashion. Which I was doing before, and will continue to do. Except now I have paperwork to file and reports to run and sign to make sure I know I am what I am.

That said, regulation never PREVENTS anything. So it is totally unfair to say Madoff existed because of deregulation. We are all creatures of our time, and deregulation has done alot more positive things than negative.
ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING REGULATION, however, has been lax. That is a concern. I'd rather live in a world where enforcement prevented 2 young men from buying guns and ammo before killing their schoolmates than in a world that added 40 more rules and regulations without the enforcement to back it up.

We have plenty of good regulations. We need more enforcement. And not Spitzer style "oh lets find a regulation from a bygone era that will help make me a stylized man of the people" enforcement. We need good, honest enforcement.

Was subjected to the "normal" examination that all new RIAs and companies are supposed to be subjected to during their first year of operation. For his handful of accounts and less than $5m of assets under management he was subjected to 3 days with an examiner who checked every single account and verified that the paperwork was in order and that the assets actually existed at the custodian (Fidelity).

Madoff started his investment advisory business about the same time as my brother does. He ran over $15b through his new advisory company yet was never examined. Could be because he knew the right people. Or maybe it was that the SEC examiner assigned to him was dating his neice.

Fact is, despite being bigger and more of a threat to the system than almost anybody else, Madoff was subject to none of the normal examinations that anybody starting an investment advisory business would face. No justice and no regulation for those who are big and well connected.

Everybody at the SEC who was involved in any way should be fired. Period. Enough smelled around this guy for years that he should have been investigated. He started a new business in 2006 that should have been examined within a year as a matter of standard procedure. His family members dated their regulators, he himself served on various government committees, and yet nobody every excused themselves for having a conflict of interest.

Investors will come back to this market when the rules are the same for me as they are for Maddoff. Me? If I had stolen even a tiny fraction of what Madoff did, I would not be out on bail. I certainly would not have gotten an extension to find more guarantors for my bail as Madoff has. I'd be in jail.

There can be no confidence in a market where crooks go unpunished. And that includes the crooks at the SEC.

Wait...Madoff's crime isn't a result of lack of regulation, but lack of enforcement?

Shocking. I am shocked in a shockingly large way. You mean there are crooks that live and work on Wall Street?

LMAO sorry. It's the anti-free market people who I laugh at. They don't get it. Even free marketeers WANT some level of regulation. We all know we need to have something.

But what free-marketeers REALLY want is more GOOD regulation BACKED UP by proper enforcement.

Reading some of the posts here it seems that people are still in denial about the supposed perfection of capitalism and the free market.
Can it not be seen for the all pervading ponzi scheme it is? If the debacle in the financial markets of the last year hasn't woken people up to this fact, then really, I don't see what will.

“Americans are so deathly afraid of “regulation” because they believe in the freedom to pursue their every desire without consideration for the effects this might have on their fellow man.
Self regulation of this and other industries will never work while individuals hold to this belief. Individual responsibility died long ago.

You know something- we all live on a finite planet in a seemingly infinite universe, with no clue as to why we are here, nor where we are going. What will it take to make us work towards an understanding of our purpose?

I think you confuse a few things.
I see very few people saying they want NO regulation. But the one thing we DON'T need is MORE.

It's the enforcement that is lacking. Which can be blamed on many things. One thing is for sure - the more regulations you HAVE, the less enforcement you tend to get because regulatory interaction tends to create loopholes, overlaps, and a general misunderstanding of what needs to be done or get done. Enforcers interpret vague and countermanding laws differently. Firms seek more ways to avoid regulation.

More regulation = more problems.
No regulation = more problems.

Enforced, simple regulations = increased fairness and effectiveness.

Thanks, Dean. Conversely, If we rely on a regulated society to protect us, we are not dliigent. I do not carry a weapon, although legal in my state, so I do not frequent locations where a weapon would provide a measure of protection. Having the SEC alerted about Madoff's activities did not protect investors. They should have been diligent about their money. The Mason jar in a former time is looking pretty good.

How dare he write such an article on Minyanville! Don't you read Mish, Kevin, Bennet, Todd? (Well, I can't fig. out Todd). Questioning the revealed truth of Free-Markets Uber Alles - Invisible Hands, wild and free, arranging all to our benefit, and often destruction - is Heresy! Heresy I say! Burn him at the stake!

Bill

LMAO
Even the most ardent free market "religionist" supports a degree of regulation. We do oppose the concept, frequently pushed by politicians, that the free market "caused" the current mess.

If anything, it's politicians' very visible hand that has caused the mess. Those who choose to avert their eyes from the evidence do so because of their supreme faith that somehow, someway, politicians can actually "fix" things as opposed to break them.

Of course, evidence of said fixes are scant. Meanwhile, a somewhat free market has a much better track record than any centrally planned or moderately socialist economy. Even the mixed economies of Europe are not free from the current situation, so clearly having increased gov't intervention is no panacea to the supposed problems that exist in free markets.

The invisible hand is very real and very effective. Should you take the time to read the "Theory of Moral Sentiments" from which it is derived, perhaps you'd have a better appreciation for it.

Sadly, supporters of the politically invasive economy lack the fundamental elements of proof to show where the markets fail and government interaction succeeds. Almost all market failures are a result of external influence - not the market itself.

Mocking free market supporters via an extremist caricature of their views does not a case make.

And I don't deny that more regulation would be a bad thing when we cannot even enforce what is already there.

Enforced, simple regulations would no doubt be desirable but the premise would be that man is sufficiently moral to abide by simple rules. I wish it were so. Unfortunately, we live in a world where we have moved ever further from simple rules- the Ten Commandments required a mere 300 words ,the American Declaration of Independence 1,300 words and the EU Regulations regarding the export of duck eggs required 26,900 words.

I am not advocating additional or more complex regulation. Like you, I would like to see those invested with upholding the regulations we now have actually doing their job.

Indeed. Words cannot protect us.
Even enforcement cannot protect us 100%.

But to suggest that the free market is flawed, or a belief in it is somehow misguided, is to completely miss the forest for the trees.

Focusing on infrequent (but sometimes monumental) failures and saying they are the result of belief in the unfettered markets is simply wrong. It completely ignores the multiple (and always massive) failures of government intervention.
In addition, markets do have a tendency to heal themselves, given time and effort.

I can't remember the last time government intervention actually healed itself. Oh right, that would be never.

and in Madoff's case, "Guys and Dolls" comes to mind:
One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an ear full of cider.

Con men are what they are. If something is too good to be true, then it is too good to be true.

The funny thing is, with Madoff, most of his investors already KNEW this, and invested anyway.
Greed does funny things to people. Like make them want to take that bet.

One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an ear full of cider.

Guys and Dolls....

gotta love Nathan Detroit. And/or Madoff.

"If anything, it's politicians' very visible hand that has caused the mess."

Did the politicians create $60T of non-standard, misunderstood, OTC CDS's? Did the politicians create Bistro? CDO's derived from CDO's? CDO's containing CDS's? Did the politicians force the big 5 to lever 40 to one (and, as we know, more)? Did the politicians sell no-doc mortgages? Did the politicians force Hank Paulson in 2004 to argue for deregulation of the big 5? (I said force, not allow). Ok, I agree the politicians are to blame - at least Phil Gramm - in 1999 with Gramm-Leach-Billey repealing Glass Steagall, and in 2000 <prohibiting> regulation of CDS's. Them politicians...

Sheesh.

The only so-called argument I've heard promoting the idea that the politicians, not private Madoff's and Madoff wannabe's, are to blame is that they increased the "pressure" on FMNA to buy mortgages. If so, why are Iceland, Russia, Dubai, EU, China... in crisis.

Sheesh again.

I'll say this for you FMR's (Free-Market Religionistas) - you are consistent. Neither rain, nor snow, nor overwhelming, obvious, clear, and compelling reality will stay you from your appointed rounds. (What is it about learning the word "Austria"?)

Bill
---Recovering Republican

I daresay if there were no laws against murder there would be more murders. When gambling is legalized the amount of gambling goes up.

Oh, yes, hen houses function much better when the foxes set the rules about who is allowed entry.

Did you not read about the Dept. of Commerce wanting to regulate mortgages back in 2005? As is normal, the affected companies lobbied for changes to the proposed regulations. Some of the comments made by Merrill Lynch, WAMU, Lehman Bros., Countrywide, and so on make interesting reading.

Essentially, they made the free market arguments repeated several times in comments on this article, claiming that the market would function much better if they were permitted to continue to make no-doc mortgage loans, negative amortization loans, ARMS with 1 year teaser rates that then reset and tripled the payment, and so on. They claimed they knew best how to allocate their capital. They claimed that regulation would be harmful to the economy.

They lied through their divinely accursed teeth in the interest of short term profits. And destroyed their companies doing so. And there is not one iota of evidence that the lesson has been learned. The lesson is:
You aren't as smart as you think you are.
There is more risk than you know.
Your greed is blinding you to danger.

These 3 statements are always true, of every CEO and investor, everywhere. Including me.

fat and happy

pay me now or pay it all later

Less cake, more guillotines.

Hogwash! Obviously the free market has to be protected from fraud. Deregulation is not the culprit here; fraud is the culprit. Deregulation does not mean that you allow fraud, or that you don't police the actions of individuals. That is the responsibility of government, but it is not the responsibility of government to insert itself in the free market to dictate anything other than preventing corruption or criminal activities.

Todays posters share a belief in free markets that sails under the banner of "due diligence" and may the buyer beware. With no transparency or rules, the tapping of our white canes gets drowned out by the laughter of the brokers.

Team "cover-up" has spoken.

The question is NOT "How did this happen?"

Rather, it is "Why now?"

"The lesson is:
You aren't as smart as you think you are.
There is more risk than you know.
Your greed is blinding you to danger.

These 3 statements are always true..."

Truer words are rarely spoken (or printed...)

Madoffs Ponzi scheme sheds light on mutual funds that claim they manage money for investors using their knowledge and expertise to limit investor's risk. Say What? Look at all the funds that were exposed to Madoffs scheme and ask yourself what it was that they did to limit your risk.

Remember WorldCom, Enron, Quest, Lucent and all the mutual funds that were caught with their pants down. Risk Management? Expertise? Remember Arthur Anderson? The accountants that helped cook the books.

I recall where years ago Janus Twenty was buying AOL and had over 280 million shares in the one fund and buying those shares had driven the price up to over 80 dollars a share then investors jumped at the top leaving Janus with 280 million shares and no market to sell to. They tossed in the towel when stock got down to 20 dollars and sold which further drove the price down to single digits.

With so much retirement money being pumped into the markets in the last 10 years mutual funds had no new places to put their bets so they just kept piling money in on top of existing funds driving up their prices.

I guess that's why Wall Street decided to pack it out the back door with all the excessive bonuses and golden parachutes and muti million dollar wage packages. Risk Management. Reducing the risk of being over bought and over priced. Harvard mentality at work.

Where is Harvey Pitt? Former head of the SEC. Maybe he can sell Madoff a go past jail pass for a couple of million bucks.

Wall Street won't change so why are we pumping trillions of federal money into Wall Street to keep it pumped up? Paulson this question is for you!

Have a wonderful day!


JPM

and worth discussing, is that Americans are so deathly afraid of “regulation” that we meekly allow ourselves to be swindled."

A rather odd conclusion after a recounting of the sub-prime mess that was fostered by politicians who were bribed to look the other way. Politicians of course appoint the regulators.

What is worth discussing is how much worse the situation would have become if the public endorsed more regulation and had meekly allowed themsleves to be fooled that they would be safer as a result.

Trust but verify..... but trusting in a government is usually a mis-placed hope.

Madoffs Ponzi scheme sheds light on mutual funds that claim they manage money for investors using their knowledge and expertise to limit investor's risk. Say What? Look at all the funds that were exposed to Madoffs scheme and ask yourself what it was that they did to limit your risk.

Remember WorldCom, Enron, Quest, Lucent and all the mutual funds that were caught with their pants down. Risk Management? Expertise? Remember Arthur Anderson? The accountants that helped cook the books.

I recall where years ago Janus Twenty was buying AOL and had over 280 million shares in the one fund and buying those shares had driven the price up to over 80 dollars a share then investors jumped at the top leaving Janus with 280 million shares and no market to sell to. They tossed in the towel when stock got down to 20 dollars and sold which further drove the price down to single digits.

With so much retirement money being pumped into the markets in the last 10 years mutual funds had no new places to put their bets so they just kept piling money in on top of existing funds driving up their prices.

I guess that's why Wall Street decided to pack it out the back door with all the excessive bonuses and golden parachutes and muti million dollar wage packages. Risk Management. Reducing the risk of being over bought and over priced. Harvard mentality at work.

Where is Harvey Pitt? Former head of the SEC. Maybe he can sell Madoff a go past jail pass for a couple of million bucks.

Wall Street won't change so why are we pumping trillions into Wall Street to keep it pumped up? Paulson this question is for you!

Have a wonderful day!


JPM

Laws should protect people from others who initiate the use of force, not protect them from themselves.

If gambling is legalized there may indeed be more of it, but the mob is the loser. I don't gamble but don't believe it is a crime, just not a wise thing to do. Forced gambling, such as using my tax money for bail-outs, should be illegal as it is the same thing as buying protection from the mob.

You're missing the point. In any situation - free market or government controlled, choices WILL be made by players. No, politicians DIDN'T create those things nor did they force Paulson to do anything. But Paulson's deregulation didn't create this mess, either. Nor did these new security types, either.

What created the mess was a combination of lack of oversight AND the unprincipled assertion on the part of politicians that EVERYONE should own a home, forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite stupid loans AND not allowing their books to be audited (thank you Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer).
Politicians created the mess by doing 2 things - first creating stupid regulations that benefit the wrong people, destroy productivity and promote moral hazard, second by not enforcing the existing laws that make sense (Madoff and Enron are classic examples).
You can claim all you want that this is the result of the free market, but the market, like water, follows the path of least resistance. If politicians rig a market to generate a particular outcome (such as 100% home ownership regardless of income levels), then the market will move in that direction. Is the market at fault for this? No.
Moral hazard comes into play when situations are created to promote excessive risk. This typically occurs when politicians ignore enforcing regulations OR engage in economic tactics to provide benefits to a certain class of people in a manner that is economically not feasible. My grandfather, a former real estate developer and manager, used to laugh at Fannie Mae saying that he was always happy that they would buy his mortgages, but he couldn't figure out what they would do when they realized that some of the mortgages they bought from his competitors were doomed to fail. This was over 40 years ago! This is a problem that has been a long time coming....and Fannie Mae was (back then and is now) a government institution that rigs the market.


Get over your anti-free market paranoia. The market does what it does and the proof of its effectiveness is over 1000 years of growth. I don't see alternatives that are as effective at providing value. I'm sure some economists would be interested in hearing any if you had them.

Remember, free marketeers are NOT opposed to regulation. They support it. But they support good, enforced, regulation. Read "Reminiscences of a Stock Operator" for a good idea of what I refer to. Jesse Livermore made money regardless of what the politicians did, but he complained that the rules they put in place negated the common man's ability to join the market. I'm afraid he's correct.

Charlie,

Unfortunately, Madoff played his victims well. Many of them are co-religionists (Jewish). This is a common theme with con artists. They share, or claim to share, a common identity with the victim, and thereby build greater trust than should exist. Similar scams afflict other faiths, racial groups, and so on. Yes, every investor should do their DD but for a guy this prominent and respected to be this crooked is beyond belief for at least some people.

His corruption of the people who should have been regulating him is a whole nother story. When your job is to look under rocks, you do not ask the nice man in the expensive suit what is under the rocks. You turn them over and see for yourself.

I hope Obama nukes the frakin' SEC. I would suggest firing everyone appointed by Bush, everyone appointed or hired by a Bush appointee, and so on for about 3 more iterations. A similar cleansing needs to happen at the EPA (Google "EPA lawsuit" and boggle).

But did this happen because Bush was on the take? No (or not entirely), this happened because Bush / Reagan style Republicans really believe that regulation is bad and government is a burden, so they appoint foxes to guard hen houses as a way of "repealing" regulations that they didn't believe in to begin with.

I have no problem with the argument that government can be a burden and many regulations are a pain in the assets. But people in the executive branch have a sworn duty to see that the laws are faithfully enforced, not to fight guerrilla war against the legislative branch.

Possibly. Possibly. But it's hard to say since there is no evidence. Prohibition didn't reduce alcohol usage, it just turned it into a crime and some would argue that prohibition increased usage.

People generally view items such as murder as distasteful, and engaging in it would increase the likelyhood YOU would be murdered (see gang behavior for evidence of this). So most people tend to avoid it. Where laws tend to break down is on more quasi-questionable behavior, things that run the fine line of being bad versus providing benefit. When you see people getting rich, you try to find out how they did it so you can too...even if it's in a Ponzi scheme. Supposedly, you're smarter than them and will get out early. But most people usually lose. It's hard to fend off the herd when being part of it seems to have certain benefits.

Lemmings don't really cast themselves into the sea, but when they do, it's usually because there is a perceived benefit to being part of the crowd that is doing so. Perhaps it is to swim and find more food on a nearby landmass. However, the outcome of this behavior is rarely beneficial.

People are herd animals, psychologically speaking, so fighting the urge to be part of that herd is very difficult. We have lots of laws designed to prevent illegal rioting, but it still occurs from time to time - herd behavior.

Do laws make things less likely? It's not an experiment anyone is ever willing to try. I'd argue that at the beginning, yes, things would spike. But crowds find their own sense of balance and over time they'd decrease and even out. Just like the market does. When you leave it alone, anyway.

I'd disagree. We are not arguing for "let the buyer beware". We are all for regulation of a meaningful sort.

Have you not seen that Madoff's regulators WILLINGLY avoided reviewing him? Enforcement is key.

So tell me - the current crop of anti-freemarketeers calling for more regulation because of Madoff - what happens when we ADD more regulation and STILL DON'T enforce? Will we be better?

Free markets are not equivalent to NO LAWS. They are equivalent with FEWER and BETTER ENFORCED laws.

THIS

discussing the Madoff scandal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N--WArBxGk

"the SEC is totaly inept..."

Dear Guy,

We're clearly sitting on the same side of the gridiron. But I object to some of your language:

"Astonishingly" congress (they don't deserve a capital, nor should anyone be astonished.)

"Our" priorities. In my (never humble) opinion, I don't want my priorities crumpled together like an empty cigarette pack with those who "spend 6 billion..." etc, or with those who "applaud..." etc.

What I applaud are those who aren't afraid to announce very clearly that the emperor is naked.

Best,
Seamus O'Bannion.

People all over the world know the <a title="abercrombie and fitch" href="http://www.anfworld.com/" rel="dofollow"><strong>abercrombie and fitch</strong></a>,but not everyone really knows how fashion the abercrombie is,hollister is the Legend maker. Everybody wears the hollister clothing would be the abercrombie mensand the abercrombie womens, if you want know you can search the Ruehl No.925 or abercrombie outlet in the www.google.com .