RE Business Archives

 The decline in home prices is accelerating across the nation, according to a new report, and a record number of foreclosures is expected to push prices down further through next year.

 
 
But a second report released on Tuesday indicated that consumer confidence in the economy rose in November to the highest level in five months amid some more hopeful signs.
 
The Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller 20-city home price index released Tuesday fell 0.7 percent in September from August. Eighteen of the 20 cities recorded price declines.
 
Cleveland recorded the biggest drop, 3 percent from a month earlier. Prices in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, which had been showing strength this year, also dropped in September from August.
 
Washington and Las Vegas were the only metro areas to post gains in monthly prices.
 
The 20-city index has risen 5.9 percent from its April 2009 bottom. But it remains nearly 28.6 percent below the peak, in July 2006. And home prices have fallen in 15 of the 20 cities in the last year.
 
Prices rose in many cities from April through July, mostly helped by government tax credits that have since expired.
 
The national quarterly index, which measures home prices in nine regions of the country, dropped 2 percent in the third quarter from the previous quarter.
 
In the other report, the Conference Board said that its Consumer Confidence Index for November rose to 54.1 points, up from a revised 49.9 in October. Analysts were expecting 52.0. November’s reading is the highest since June’s 54.3.
 
The November reading is the highest since June, when the index stood at 54.3 just as the economy’s recovery started to lose momentum. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected 52.0.
 
It takes a level of 90 to indicate a healthy economy, which has not been approached since the recession began in December 2007.
 
One component of the index, how Americans feel now about the economy, rose to 24, up from 23.5. The other gauge, which measures how American feel about the economy over the next six months, rose to 74.2, up from 67.5 last month.
 
“Consumer confidence is now at its highest level in five months, a welcome sign as we enter the holiday season,” Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board Consumer Research Center, said in a statement. “Consumers’ assessment of the current state of the economy and job market, while only slightly better than last month, suggests the economy is still expanding, albeit slowly. Hopefully, the improvement in consumers’ mood will continue in the months ahead.”
 
Others were less optimistic.
 
“The rise in consumer confidence in November is not consistent with a sustained acceleration in consumption growth at a time when income growth is weak, the unemployment rate is high and a double dip in house prices is under way,” said Paul Dales, United States economist at Capital Economics.
 
The consumer confidence index, which measures how respondents feel about business conditions, the job market and the economy over the next six months, has recovered fitfully since hitting a record low of 25.3 in February 2009. Economists watch confidence closely because consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of economic activity and is crucial to a strong rebound. The improved confidence mirrors an increase in spending in November, fueled by early discounting on holiday goods that lured shoppers into stores.
 
The Conference Board’s index, based on a random survey mailed to 5,000 households from Nov. 1 to Nov. 19, showed that worries about jobs eased, but that concern remained high.
 
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
For more: http://nyti.ms/eoUCAk

 F.H.A. Rule Changes for Mortgage Borrowers

 
HOME buyers with sketchy credit who are unable to qualify for conventional mortgages may now find it more costly and difficult to obtain loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration. 
 
New rules that went into effect this month adjust the two types of mortgage insurance paid by consumers for loans insured by the F.H.A., which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
 
One change raises the annual insurance premium, paid monthly by the borrower, setting it at 0.85 percent to 0.9 percent of the loan balance, depending on the down payment or equity owned; the amount used to be 0.5 percent to 0.55 percent. The other change lowers the one-time upfront insurance premium that borrowers must pay, to 1 percent of the loan balance from 2.25 percent.
 
The upfront premium is paid in a lump sum at closing or added to the loan balance, unlike the monthly premium, which is paid over the life of the loan in addition to the interest and principal.
 
The decrease in the upfront premium, welcome though it might seem to some customers, does little to offset the effects of the monthly increase, which Andre Harriott, the president of the Access Mortgage Corporation in New Haven, Conn., called “really pretty hefty.”
 
“Everyone is really living paycheck to paycheck,” he said.
 
F.H.A. loans are usually taken out by buyers who cannot qualify under the stiffer down-payment requirements of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the government-controlled buyers of loans. F.H.A. requires 3.5 percent, while Fannie Mae typically requires 5 to 15 percent or more, depending on the type of loan.
 
The changes, under an example provided by the F.H.A., mean that a borrower who puts 3.5 percent down on a $154,000 house with a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 5 percent (such a consumer typically earns a gross annual income of $54,000, according to the agency) and who finances the upfront premium into the loan will see monthly mortgage payments, including taxes, interest and the two insurance premiums, rise to $1,238 from $1,205. The example is based on median data, including property taxes put at about 2.5 percent of home value. That increase includes the drop in the upfront mortgage insurance, to $1,486 from $3,344 — but also includes the rise in the monthly insurance premium, to $111 from $68.
 
Last August, President Obama signed into law a bill authorizing the F.H.A. to increase premiums to shore up its insurance funds; the agency had been authorized to raise the annual premium to as much as 1.55 percent.
 
Conventional loans, which conform to Fannie and Freddie underwriting guidelines, do not require upfront mortgage insurance. But some may require monthly private mortgage insurance, if the borrower puts less than 20 percent down toward the purchase, or has less than 20 percent equity in a refinancing.
 
F.H.A. borrowers, meanwhile, can stop paying the monthly mortgage insurance only after five years and when their loan-to-value ratio reaches 78 percent, at which point they have 22 percent equity in their home.
 
F.H.A. loans are typically offered by niche direct lenders, and because of the insurance, they often carry interest rates equal to or slightly below those of conventional loans.
 
In October, the F.H.A. set a minimum FICO score of 500 for borrowers who want an F.H.A.-insured loan — the first time a minimum was set. It also introduced a new minimum down payment of 10 percent for borrowers with FICO scores below 580. (Those above 580 still pay a minimum 3.5 percent.)
 
The issue for the F.H.A, Mr. Harriott said, is that the realm of borrowers has widened. “We see executives of little companies, teachers, people making $200,000 a year, doing an F.H.A. loan, because they’ve gotten into a financial situation,” he said, adding that F.H.A. loans are perceived as safe by investors because of the insurance.
 
By LYNNLEY BROWNING
For more: http://nyti.ms/h22leV

Join Me Tonite at 9pm

"How To Get 0% Unsecured Loans

with Your New Business Lines of Credit"

http://bit.ly/Webinar9pm 

 

Do a little something extra today to make a veteran feel great. Tell them a simple "Thank You" goes a long way and makes them feel great.

Our veterans allow me and you to live like we do in good old USA!

eNews Updates:

T-Minus 20 days and counting

Check out these incredible training sessions:

For starters let me show you how my CPA, Mike Grinnan, will give you a simple form to fill in the blank to make your cruise an education expense for your real estate business..

7 Days of Fun, Sun, and learning with the Experts.

The Great Investor Cruise
Dec 5th to 12th, 2010  (sunday to sunday)
   RCCL Freedom of the Seas!
   Departs:  from Port Canaveral, FL (Cocoa Beach)
  – St. Thomas, Home of Megan’s Bay
  – St. Maarten, awesome beaches and shopping
  – Coco-Cay, private island full of water sports and wildlife
  3 Days at Sea are your Seminar at Sea sessions.
  PLUS special Nite Owl sessions every night at 9pm
  Contests, Fun, Games, Learning, Networking
  Dinner with fellow investors from all around the world

YOU have earned it. Reward Yourself

Only $995
includes study guide, workbook, graduation,
cocktail party, expert panel sessions and more!

Call Janis 1-800-834-4338 x113 to grab your cabin now
before they are gone

—————————————————
http://www.GreatInvestorCruise.com <——— Only 5 Cabins Remain!
—————————————————

Check out the list of speakers details and more

IRA expert will show you how to do a boatload of things with Tax Free Profit!

Business Lines of Credit UNSECURED

Rehab

Legal Updates, S.A.F.E. Act stuff, Lead Paint and more

Short Sale Secrets

Buying Fixer Uppers

How to legally take over payments on low fixed rate loans.

how to get 0% loans and get them approved in 15 minutes

How to have them Give You Properties for Free

Call Janis now!!

Even as investors put aside their worries on Friday about the effect of the foreclosure mess on bank stocks, new signs emerged of what is likely to be a long and expensive legal battle for the financial services industry over mortgages gone bad.

 
Citigroup disclosed in a regulatory filing that it was being sued by several investors, including Charles Schwab and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, in an effort to force Citigroup to buy back soured mortgages that the investors contended did not conform to proper underwriting standards.
 
Meanwhile, Wells Fargo said in a filing that it “cannot estimate the possible loss or range of loss” from these cases, and Bank of America said in a filing that investors holding $375 billion worth of mortgage securities had filed similar suits.
 
In a separate announcement, however, Bank of America said a lawsuit brought by the Maine State Retirement System and other investors was dismissed on Thursday by a federal court in California, reducing that $375 billion figure to $54 billion. But that news came after the S.E.C. filing had already been prepared.
 
The dismissal is a significant victory for Bank of America and underscores the legal challenges in trying to force banks to buy back defaulted mortgages.
 
“The court’s ruling demonstrates the strict legal hurdles plaintiffs face in bringing these sorts of claims,” said Brian E. Pastuszenski, counsel for Bank of America’s Countrywide unit.
 
Still, Bank of America faces a different effort by other investors, including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Pimco, the giant money management firm, to force it to buy back a portion of roughly $47 billion in mortgages they hold. Neither the $375 billion nor the $54 billion figure reflects this push, because those investors have yet to sue.
 
On Thursday, Bank of America’s lawyers sent a strongly worded letter to the lawyer leading the $47 billion effort, rejecting her claims as “utterly baseless.” The bank contends the any loss of value stemmed from the economic downturn rather than an underlying problem with how the mortgages were sold to investors or have been serviced.
 
Bank of America and other large institutions like JPMorgan Chase and GMAC Mortgage have been criticized for pursuing foreclosures without the proper paperwork or with signatures by so-called robo-signers.
 
But on Wall Street, the worry is that efforts to force the banks to buy back defaulted mortgages could actually be a longer and more expensive fight for the industry. Some analysts estimate the eventual cost could total tens of billions of dollars, and that worry pushed down shares of the big banks sharply last month.
 
Indeed, Bank of America’s chief executive, Brian T. Moynihan, has signaled that the threat of forced buybacks will not be resolved quickly — or cheaply.
 
“It’s loan by loan, and we have the resources to deploy in that kind of review,” he said last month, during a conference call to discuss the bank’s financial results for the third quarter. “We’d love never to talk about this again and put it behind us, but the right answer is to fight for it.”
 
Despite the disclosures, bank stocks rallied for the second day in a row. Bank of America shares closed up 23 cents, at $12.36, while Citigroup rose 16 cents, to $4.49, and Wells Fargo jumped $1.76, to $29.22.
 
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
For more: http://nyti.ms/aQgZUD

Almost 1 Million Tax Payers Have Viewed This Video 

Let’s Hear Your Comments Below!

 Consumer advocates, the press, investors and homeowners have already compiled a compelling list of transgressions: conflicts of interest that have banks pushing foreclosures, without a good-faith effort to modify troubled loans. Dubious fees that inflate mortgage balances. The hundreds of thousands of flawed foreclosure affidavits that violated homeowners’ legal protections. The misplaced documents. And it goes on. 

 
 
IN Congressional hearings last week, Obama administration officials acknowledged that uncertainty over foreclosures could delay the recovery of the housing market. The implications for the economy are serious. For instance, the International Monetary Fund found that the persistently high unemployment in the United States is largely the result of foreclosures and underwater mortgages, rather than widely cited causes like mismatches between job requirements and worker skills.
 
This chapter of the financial crisis is a self-inflicted wound. The major banks and their agents have for years taken shortcuts with their mortgage securitization documents — and not due to a momentary lack of attention, but as part of a systematic approach to save money and increase profits. The result can be seen in the stream of reports of colossal foreclosure mistakes: multiple banks foreclosing on the same borrower; banks trying to seize the homes of people who never had a mortgage or who had already entered into a refinancing program.
 
Banks are claiming that these are just accidents. But suppose that while absent-mindedly paying a bill, you wrote a check from a bank account that you had already closed. No one would have much sympathy with excuses that you were in a hurry and didn’t mean to do it, and it really was just a technicality.
 
The most visible symptoms of cutting corners have come up in the foreclosure process, but the roots lie much deeper. As has been widely documented in recent weeks, to speed up foreclosures, some banks hired low-level workers, including hair stylists and teenagers, to sign or simply stamp documents like affidavits — a job known as being a “robo-signer.”
 
Such documents were improper, since the person signing an affidavit is attesting that he has personal knowledge of the matters at issue, which was clearly impossible for people simply stamping hundreds of documents a day. As a result, several major financial firms froze foreclosures in many states, and attorneys general in all 50 states started an investigation.
 
However, the problems in the mortgage securitization market run much wider and deeper than robo-signing, and started much earlier than the foreclosure process.
 
When mortgage securitization took off in the 1980s, the contracts to govern these transactions were written carefully to satisfy not just well-settled, state-based real estate law, but other state and federal considerations. These included each state’s Uniform Commercial Code, which governed “secured” transactions that involve property with loans against them, and state trust law, since the packaged loans are put into a trust to protect investors. On the federal side, these deals needed to satisfy securities agencies and the Internal Revenue Service.
 
This process worked well enough until roughly 2004, when the volume of transactions exploded. Fee-hungry bankers broke the origination end of the machine. One problem is well known: many lenders ceased to be concerned about the quality of the loans they were creating, since if they turned bad, someone else (the investors in the securities) would suffer.
 
A second, potentially more significant, failure lay in how the rush to speed up the securitization process trampled traditional property rights protections for mortgages.
 
The procedures stipulated for these securitizations are labor-intensive. Each loan has to be signed over several times, first by the originator, then by typically at least two other parties, before it gets to the trust, “endorsed” the same way you might endorse a check to another party. In general, this process has to be completed within 90 days after a trust is closed.
 
Evidence is mounting that these requirements were widely ignored. Judges are noticing: more are finding that banks cannot prove that they have the standing to foreclose on the properties that were bundled into securities. If this were a mere procedural problem, the banks could foreclose once they marshaled their evidence. But banks who are challenged in many cases do not resume these foreclosures, indicating that their lapses go well beyond minor paperwork.
 
Increasingly, homeowners being foreclosed on are correctly demanding that servicers prove that the trust that is trying to foreclose actually has the right to do so. Problems with the mishandling of the loans have been compounded by the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, an electronic lien-registry service that was set up by the banks. While a standardized, centralized database was a good idea in theory, MERS has been widely accused of sloppy practices and is increasingly facing legal challenges.
 
By YVES SMITH
 
For more: http://nyti.ms/aPlvOQ
 

by RICH VETSTEIN

 

“Are title insurance companies still insuring foreclosure properties?”– James In Cambridge
 
Answer: Yes, they are.
 
Initially, the press reported that some major title insurers had temporarily stopped insuring foreclosure titles from JP Morgan Chase, Ally Financial, and Bank of America. However, my understanding is that all title insurers have resumed insuring all foreclosure properties in the wake of several major agreements between national title insurance companies and lenders. These warranty and indemnification agreements would essentially shift the risk of loss from irregular/defective foreclosures back onto the foreclosing lenders.
 
From the conveyancing side, I can definitely tell you that title insurers have advised their attorney agents to go through foreclosure titles with a fine tooth comb and to be especially diligent in examining and certifying foreclosure titles. Buyers of foreclosure properties should be prepared for delays in getting their transactions closed.
 
“How is robo-signing different from the Ibanez case situation”?–Scott
 
Answer:  ”Robo-signing” and the Massachusetts Ibanez foreclosure case are two different situations, but the root of the problem — the complexity of the securitized mortgage industry and the sheer volume of foreclosure paperwork to be processed — remains a contributing cause of both problems.
 
“Robo-signing,” as one of the leading foreclosure defense attorneys has claimed to the Huffington Post, refers to how financial institutions and their mortgage servicing departments hired hair stylists, Walmart floor workers and people who had worked on assembly lines and installed them in “foreclosure expert” jobs with no formal training to sign sworn documents submitted to courts. According to depositions released in Florida and the Post, many of those workers testified that they barely knew what a mortgage was. Some couldn’t define the word “affidavit.” Others didn’t know what a complaint was, or even what was meant by personal property. Most troubling, several said they knew they were lying when they signed the foreclosure affidavits, and that they agreed with the defense lawyers’ accusations about document fraud.
 
This is obviously a major problem in states such as Florida which require a judge’s approval of a foreclosure based on sworn documents. However, Massachusetts is not such a state. Other than verifying the borrower is not in the military, Massachusetts state law doesn’t require any sworn verification that the foreclosure is kosher (if you will). That may change after lawmakers and the Attorney General’s office react this foreclosure mess. In fact, the AG announced this week she is investigating on of the largest “foreclosure mills” in the state for alleged non-compliance with the new tenant foreclosure law.
 
The Ibanez problem occurs when mortgage loan documentation recorded with the Registry of Deeds lagged far behind the actual ownership of the loan, due to complex mortgage securitization agreements and sloppy follow up. Land Court Judge Keith Long’s ruling effectively invalidated thousands of foreclosures which suffered from this newly recognized “defect.” The Ibanez situation is not a product of fraud, like robo-signing, in my opinion. In fact, the practice of recording mortgage assignments “late” was long accepted by the title examination community prior to the Ibanez ruling. So it caught a lot of folks off-guard.Getting title insurance on an Ibanez-afflicted property is near impossible these days, and the robo-signing controversy certainly doesn’t help alleviate  the risk tolerance of anxious title insurance underwriters.
 
To be sure, both Ibanez and the robo-signing controversy have reverberated through the real estate community, and have impacted foreclosure sales on a number of levels. If you are considering purchasing a foreclosed property, please contact us so we can guide you through the complicated process and protect your interests.
 
 
For more: http://bit.ly/apo6Tu
 
by RICH VETSTEIN

 

The Fed Bought Fraud and Plans To Buy More

 
By Greg Hunter
 

In the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008, the Federal Reserve announced it would buy mortgage-backed securities, or MBS.  The January announcement by the Fed said it would buy MBS from failed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the amount of $1.25 trillion.  
 
At the time, the Fed said in a press release, “The goal of the program was to provide support to mortgage and housing markets and to foster improved conditions in financial markets more generally.”  (Click here for the full Fed statement.) It did provide “support” to the mortgage market, but did it also buy fraud and cover the banks that sold it?  The evidence shows, at the very least, it bought massive amounts of fraud.
 
We now know the Fed definitely bought valueless MBS because it has joined other ripped-off investors to demand Bank of America buy back billions in sour home debt.  A Bloomberg story from just last week, featuring Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser,  reports, “The New York Fed, which acquired mortgage debt in the 2008 rescues of Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc., has joined a bondholder group that aims to force Bank of America Corp.to buy back some bad home loans packaged into $47 billion of securities.  On the one hand, the Fed has “a duty to the taxpayer to try to collect on behalf of the taxpayer on these mortgages,” Plosser said today at an event in Philadelphia.”
 
Mr. Plosser lamented the “difficult spot” the central bank is in because it is both bank regulator and plaintiff.  He said, “Should we be in the business of suing the financial institutions that we are in fact responsible for supervising?” (Click here to read the complete Bloomberg story.) To that question, I ask shouldn’t the Fed have done a much better job of supervising the big banks in the first place?
 
The whole financial and mortgage crisis from sour securities to foreclosure fraud is in the process of blowing sky high.  The entire mess is clearly the biggest financial fraud in history!  It looks to me like the regulators were just supervising their pay checks being deposited into the bank.
 
And remember, the $1.25 trillion of mortgage-backed securities the Fed bought from Fannie and Freddie?  How much of that is fraud?  William Black, the outspoken Professor of Economics from the University of Missouri KC, says all the big banks were committing “major frauds”in the mortgage-backed security market.  Black says, at Citicorp, for example, “. . . 80% of the mortgage loans it sold to Fannie and Freddie were sold under false representations and warranties.” (Click here for the complete Black interview.) Black claims the frauds increased at some banks, and it is sill going on today!   (I admit I used this same video in a recent post.  I use it again, because it is the single most important and damning indictment of the big banks out there.  Professor Black defines the size of the entire fraudulent mortgage mess.)
 
If he’s right, and I think he is, that means the Fed just spent the last 20 months (the  program ended in August 2010) buying a trillion dollars in mortgage fraud!  
 
That is a staggering amount even for the most powerful central bank in the world.  
 
Could the Federal Reserve have bought that amount of fraudulent MBS and not have known it?  
 
Could the Fed have been buying that amount of rotten worthless debt to cover the banksters in the syndicate?  


Who knows if we will ever find that out because the Federal Reserve cannot be independently audited.
 
And who knows what else it bought in sour debt to bail out their banking syndicate buddies because the Federal Reserve cannot be independently audited!
 
It has never been audited in its 97 year history.
 
I know one thing, if the Fed is going to keep its banking cartel alive, it is going to be forced to print massive amounts of money out of thin air to buy a heck of a lot more fraudulent mortgage-backed securities.  
 
That’s what worries and scares me the most.
 
Greg Hunter
 
For more: http://bit.ly/dkjp2s

 Wells Fargo said that current reviews found that bank employees had failed to “strictly adhere” to its required procedures during a final step in its documentation processes. It also acknowledged that “some aspects of the notarization process” had not always been properly followed, creating the potential for paperwork errors.

 
After several weeks of insisting its foreclosure processes were sound, Wells Fargo & Company said on Wednesday that it planned to correct and resubmit up to 55,000 improperly filed documents by mid-November.
 
Wells Fargo said that current reviews found that bank employees had failed to “strictly adhere” to its required procedures during a final step in its documentation processes. It also acknowledged that “some aspects of the notarization process” had not always been properly followed, creating the potential for paperwork errors.
 
Wells officials said that the bank started to correct the 55,000 questionable files, and “out of an abundance of caution,” planned to resubmit them in 23 states where foreclosures require court approval. Bank officials maintained that the underlying information in the loan files was accurate and that the bank had not improperly foreclosed on any troubled homeowners.
 
Wells Fargo also said that it had no plans to temporarily freeze foreclosure sales, an action previously taken by its rivals Bank of America and GMAC.
 
Still, the revelations that Wells had identified as many as 55,000 improper foreclosure files add to the mortgage morass. Attorneys general in all 50 states are conducting a sweeping investigation into the industry’s practices, while a White House task force and several federal regulators have embarked on similar reviews.
 
In addition to Wells Fargo, four other large mortgage players are resubmitting tens of thousands of cases in large swaths of the country. Chase said it was looking at about 115,000 files in 41 states. Bank of America is looking at 102,000 in 23 states, where foreclosures require court approval. GMAC and PNC Financial have come forward to say they are resubmitting files with improper paperwork, too.
 
Still, Wells Fargo’s announcement was the second time a bank had backtracked on statements it had made about the extent of its foreclosure problems. After weeks of insisting that its review had not turned up any serious errors, Bank of America acknowledged a number of paperwork errors, including incorrect data and misspelled names.
 
Wells Fargo had previously taken an even more combative stance. In its Oct. 20 conference call with investors, bank officials said they were confident that the foreclosure processes and controls were sound. That statement gave the impression that there were few if any problems but left room for the possibility that the bank might have to fix a small number of mistakes.
 
During the conference call, Wells officials dismissed concerns that the bank had systematically engaged in so-called robo-signing, where a single employee would sign thousands of loan documents without verifying their contents, as the law requires. Instead, the bank emphasized that their policies called for the same employee who compiled the foreclosure file to sign off on it — a crucial legal requirement in many states.
 
But revelations in an obscure Florida lawsuit and elsewhere raised concerns about whether that process was always followed. Under questioning, Xee Moua, a Wells Fargo manager, said she would sign off on as many as 500 foreclosure files a day without verifying the accuracy of their contents. “We don’t go into the details with these affidavits,” she said in a deposition.
 
Oscar Suris, a Wells Fargo spokesman, declined to comment on whether any of the problems the bank identified stemmed from such violations. He previously called Ms. Moua’s testimony “one isolated case” that is being disputed in the courts.
 
Wells officials also acknowledged the possibility of notarization errors. Previously, Wells officials said they believed that their notarization procedures complied with the law in South Carolina, where the bank’s loan foreclosure operations were based. As a result of the reviews, bank officials now say they are taking into consideration the unique requirements of different counties and states.
 
By ERIC DASH
For more: http://nyti.ms/bs89x7
 Page 5 of 10  « First  ... « 3  4  5  6  7 » ...  Last »