The Top 10 Worst Predictions of the Financial Crisis

The great economist John Kenneth Galbraith once said, "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable."

Speaking of former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, another economist quipped, "He was the greatest, the Maestro. Only if you look at his record, he was wrong about almost everything he ever predicted."

The Wall Street Journal once proclaimed, "If pilots' vision were as bad as economists', Amtrak would be profitable."

There's a reason economics is called "the dismal science." Truth is, it's not even a science. It's hardly an art. It's a blind gaggle of confusion, trying to make sense of a very unpredictable world. The majority of predictions never come true.

It's worth noting a few of those failed predictions -- not to point and laugh, but to learn. I never bought the perception that yesterday's news was useless. It provides a snapshot in time that shows how people analyzed the future. Looking back at failed predictions can be a great learning tool, teaching us how to avoid the same mistakes in the future.

Here are 10 eye-openers from the financial crisis.

10. Bernie Madoff (2007)
"In today's regulatory environment, it's virtually impossible to violate rules. This is something that the public really doesn't understand. ... It's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time."

Actually, this was probably the best prediction of the financial crisis, but it highlights a widespread flaw in Wall Street mentality: profits today, to hell with tomorrow.

9. Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (April 2007)
"I don't see (subprime mortgage market troubles) imposing a serious problem. I think it's going to be largely contained."

The lesson here is that financial mayhem is never contained. If you see one cockroach in the kitchen, you're chronically infested. Every financial crisis in modern history, from the Great Depression, to LTCM in 1998, to the housing bust of recent years, to the current euro crisis, spread beyond the borders of those guilty of causing the mess.

8. AIG financial products head Joseph Cassano (August 2007)
"It is hard for us, without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing one dollar in any of these [credit default swap] transactions."

Those transactions nearly bankrupted AIG (NYSE: AIG  ) months later, in a financial nuclear explosion that pulled everyone from Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS  ) to Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) to Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) into the mix. The lesson: Tail risk -- the really big risk that's hard to measure -- is the single most important kind of risk you can think about. Take whatever worst-case scenario you can think of, multiply it by 100, and prepare for it.

7. National Association of Realtors chief economist David Lereah (2006)
"The good news is that inventory levels are improving and housing supply will come closer to buyer demand in 2006. We expect a healthy and more balanced market next year." 

Of all the bad predictions Lereah made, I picked this one because it underscores an important aspect of bubbles. Lereah may have been right in his prediction that demand was coming in line with supply. But what he missed that demand itself was a bubble. If supply and demand are in line, but demand is being driven by a bunch of myopic idiots plowing into real estate only because they want to flip it two months later, the market is out of balance.

6. Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute (June 2008)
"The Federal Reserve and Congress have delivered a ton of economic stimulus, and that stimulus is set to juice up an economy that has been weak, but not terrible. If everything goes according to plan, the economy will grow faster in the second half of the year, and a recession will have been avoided."

The recession began seven months before Hassett made that remark. A few takeaways:

  1. In general, really well thought-out stimulus (a rare breed) will only blunt, not prevent, a recession.
  2. Educated economists remain oblivious to recessions in the middle of them.
  3. Nothing ever goes according to plan.

5. The Washington Times (January 2005)
"Although the overworked analogy between housing and tech stocks sounds dramatic, it is quite preposterous. 'The downside of this [housing] bubble,' said [economist Stephen] Roach last month, is 'potentially far worse than that of the equity bubble.' Really? After March 2000, the Nasdaq stock index plummeted from about 5,000 to 1,000. Does Mr. Roach mean to imply $500,000 houses might likewise drop to $100,000? Not likely."

In some parts of Las Vegas and Miami, that's actually about what happened. The Washington Times clung to a false notion that houses were special -- that they couldn't possibly suffer from the boom-bust cycle of something like dot-com stocks. But they can. Any asset can become grossly overvalued.

4. Former Sen. Phil Gramm (July 2008)
"[T]his is a mental recession. ... We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline ..."

Some downturns truly are just psychological in nature. The (very short) post-9/11 slump, for example. But what we faced in 2008 was the real deal. People couldn't pay off their debts. Banks couldn't raise capital. Companies couldn't roll over commercial paper. There was nothing mental about it. It was a real, tangible decline.

3. Ben Stein, August 2007
"The financials, as I keep saying, are just super-bargains. Like Merrill Lynch ... a couple days ago it was trading at seven times earnings. Financials typically trade at a low P/E, but this is a joke. This stock ... they might as well be putting it in cereal boxes and giving it away. That's how cheap it is."

There are two kinds of bubbles. One is a valuation bubble, like Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO  ) or Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN  ) during the dot-com boom. The other is an income bubble. In income bubbles, valuations can look attractive, but the way a company makes money -- in Merrill's case, hawking subprime slime to widows and orphans -- is a bubble waiting to burst. That's what Stein, and many others, missed.

2. Alan Greenspan (May 2005)
"The use of a growing array of derivatives and the related application of more-sophisticated approaches to measuring and managing risk are key factors underpinning the greater resilience of our largest financial institutions. ... Derivatives have permitted the unbundling of financial risks."

Finance is probably the one industry where innovation is mostly problematic. Banking should be easy: Lend money to people who can pay you back. Most attempts to complicate it beyond that are steps toward instability.

1. Yours truly (June 2008)
In the summer of 2008, RBS predicted that stocks would fall 20% over the following three months. They were almost perfectly right. I balked.

"A hefty subset of the S&P 500 ... is doing quite well," I wrote. "For the entire index to fall 20% would mean that either companies that are still doing well will tank, or the ones that aren't will be virtually wiped out -- and both outcomes seem pretty extreme at best."

Whoops. I was dead wrong about many things. First, most companies weren't doing "quite well." Second, companies can be wiped out. It's worked that way for thousands of years. And third, markets are totally unpredictable. 

So when someone makes a bold forecast, nod your head and say, "That's nice." Many people you think are crazy will turn out to be spot-on.

Got any bad predictions of your own? Fire away in the comment section below.

Check back every Tuesday and Thursday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics.

Amazon.com is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor selection. The Fool has written a bull call spread on Cisco Systems. The Fool owns shares of Bank of America. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.

Fool contributor Morgan Housel owns shares of Bank of America preferred stock. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (42) | Recommend This Article (85)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 4:39 PM, PeyDaFool wrote:

    I had to give you props for awarding yourself the number one worst prediction. It takes a big man to admit when he was wrong.

    Great article!

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 5:06 PM, mtf00l wrote:

    Ditto

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 5:15 PM, RagstoRiches2020 wrote:

    I tend to notice trends. When I remove all the noise (media) and follow the facts, it is nothing we have not seen (survived) before. The one prediction I will state was something my Grandfather told me many years ago. " Life is a cycle. Every generation must live through the same pains and pleasures." Back then I did not understand what he was saying, but it makes perfect sense. It is our time to feel the pain!

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 5:16 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    Great comment, ragstoriches!

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 5:27 PM, goalie37 wrote:

    I'm glad you included your own mistake. Mine was in a blog from 2008. I stated that although I couldn't predict the end of the downturn, I could predict that we were one day closer to it than the day before. That now seems quite premature.

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 6:06 PM, TMFDiogenes wrote:

    In 2009, I predicted (correctly, I think) that financial reform would err on the side of "let's be really careful not to 'overregulate' wall street and hurt liquidity" instead of "let's create a sane financial system that doesn't lend itself to panics every decade."

    http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2009/06/14/what-you-shou...

    But -- and this was due to enormous naivette on my part -- I expected wall street would be too powerless in the face of collapse, fearful of public retaliation, or ashamed to fight back as hard as it did to water down financial reform.

    Even though it probably would have been the wrong thing to do, there days like today (it's rainy and I'm in a bad mood) when I wonder if we'd be better off ten years from now if we'd have let the financial system collapse and come out of this with smaller, safer banks and perhaps a more meaningfully reformed financial system. Not saying that would have been a good risk to take, though I do wonder sometimes.

    But I was certainly mistaken in 2008/2009 (remember: this was a crazy time when everyone was asking whether C and BAC would be seized) when I didn't think wall st. would have the power and chutzpah to kill so many important reforms right after we bailed them out.

    people is crazy

    Ilan

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 6:22 PM, richie54 wrote:

    Great article, Morgan. It just proves what they teach you in business school...that you never see anything that hasn't happened before.

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Libertarian71 wrote:

    Morgan,

    Don't see any Democrats on your list. Let me help you. Conveniently, you forgot about Barney Frank (D-FNMA), who famously said on the House Floor in 2005 that there "we have an excessive degree of concern right now about home ownership and it's role in the economy" and who claimed there was no housing bubble.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Bert31 wrote:

    What about how we were told stimulus was needed to prevent unemployment from going over 8%? Not even in the top ten? But you can dig up the National Association of Realtors Chief Economist, from 2006? Very in depth research indeed.

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Clint35 wrote:

    Hey Ilan, if it makes you feel any better I thought pretty much the same thing. I even thought they would bring back Glass-Steagal. Silly me.

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 8:42 PM, DMac304 wrote:

    #7 Good Choice! How could anyone looking at RE statistics miss the expansion/bubble of Investor/Speculator buying and Second Homes/Investment buying? It had become a big percentage of sales and disappeared quickly when prices flattened. It would have caused a sizable correction on its own even without derivatives.

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 9:10 PM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    Oh, come on people. Has everyone forgotten Cramer's infamous "everything is fine" assessment of Bear Stearns and CIT days before they tanked?

    Morgan, I appreciate your humility, but really - you didn't have your head far enough up your (hush your mouth) to merit #1.

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 9:17 PM, InspectorJavert wrote:

    You forgot that knucklehead Barney Frank, telling Bill O'Reilly that FNMA/FHLMC would be juuuuuust fine. What a tool....

  • Report this Comment On November 30, 2010, at 9:59 PM, rd80 wrote:

    Not sure if this is my worst, from my Jun 2008 pitch for GE:

    "GE just got too cheap to pass up. I’ve been watching it since the hammering after the last earnings report and under 31, it looks like a good value."

    Just in case the pitch wasn't enough, I bought the stock and still hold it.

    Another dime for the Thurgood Marshall Academy.

  • Report this Comment On December 01, 2010, at 2:49 AM, TMFDiogenes wrote:

    Frank wasn't alone w/r the myth that housing wasn't a bubble -- confident bubble denial cut across all ideological stripes. (Sorry to editorialize, but one wonders how Frank, the ranking minority member on the finance committee during the housing bubble, seems to take all the blame for the bubble from the his colleagues who were in the majority at the time...) It was truly a national delusion.

    At any rate, here's an unofficial list of pundits and economists who got that one wrong, on both the left and right. What's hilarious about the list is just how confident everyone sounds:

    http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-lis...

  • Report this Comment On December 01, 2010, at 3:13 AM, TMFDiogenes wrote:

    I'm not exactly saying Frank's prediction was spot-on either though.

  • Report this Comment On December 01, 2010, at 9:27 AM, srkelley wrote:

    franklin raines argument to congress that housing prices can't decline should be included at the top of the list

    how far would wall street have gotten packaging risk if it was not guaranteed by US govt

    not too far

    of course he was in Congress and new everyone listening was "on the payroll" via campaign donations

    More importantly how does one separate out good predictions, (what Motley Fool sells) from bad predictions that are on the list

    we are going to have bubbles as long as money is made on leverage via investment banks

    Vanderbilt made most of his money on Wall Street by manipulations and speculations not on railroads and steamships

    It is the same way with Goldman Sachs. It is about hype, leverage, buying low and selling high, extracting huge fees for some kind of special knowledge.

    We aren't satisfied just buying Wrigleys and Mars and collecting ever increasing dividends for the rest of our lives.

  • Report this Comment On December 01, 2010, at 11:55 AM, neutrinoman wrote:

    What about Bernanke and others at the Fed? And what about that kook at the New York Times who predicted nine of the last two recessions and didn't see the financial crisis under his nose until it hit him on the head?

    There should also be a "stopped clock is right twice (or once) a day" list of permabears who can't get off a dime: Roubini, Taleb, David Rosenberg, et al.

  • Report this Comment On December 01, 2010, at 2:01 PM, jrod87 wrote:

    I just wanted to add a comment....

  • Report this Comment On December 01, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Libertarian71 wrote:

    TMFDiogenes: Hate to break the news to you, but Barney Frank was the biggest backer in the U.S. Congress of GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And these were his words: "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank#cite_note-query.ny...

    You also forget that, at the time, there were many calls to give more scrutiny to Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank, who received large campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddy, opposed all of the proposed reforms.

    Here is more of what Barney Frank said in 2003:

    "The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

    How did that work out, Morgan and TMFDiogenes?

    Barney Frank's fingerprints were all over the housing and financial crisis. Frankly (no put intended), it's shocking he did not make Morgan's Democrat-free Top Ten List. Frank should be at the very top of the list, above Morgan himself, because Morgan is merely a columnist, whereas Frank exerted actual influence over the Fannie's effect on the housing market.

  • Report this Comment On December 01, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Netteligent09 wrote:

    "Missions Accomplished.." George W. Bush, the Great Decision Maker and U.S. President.

  • Report this Comment On December 01, 2010, at 3:02 PM, boogaloog wrote:

    TMFDiogenes,

    THANK YOU for using reasoning and logic to point out that BOTH sides of the poiltical isle got things (everything?) wrong. I'd love it if TMF would adopt a poilcy of not allowing any comments with political bullsh** to ruin good discussions of financial matters. Common thread of so many discussions: article, good discussion, good discussion, libtards suck, repugs eat babies, etc, etc. If all people have is hatred for others based on poorly understood political views, I wish they'd please go away.

    As for my own bad predictions ... how long can my post be?

  • Report this Comment On December 01, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Libertarian71 wrote:

    boogaloog:

    I agree with you. Every one of the people on Morgan's list is a clown - Republicans and Democrats alike. My quibble was that Morgan was taking aim at only one side of the political aisle. And to leave Barney Frank off the list was a huge oversight.

  • Report this Comment On December 01, 2010, at 5:10 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    "My quibble was that Morgan was taking aim at only one side of the political aisle."

    Or no sides. This article has nothing to do with politics.

    "And to leave Barney Frank off the list was a huge oversight."

    There are thousands of people that could have been on this list. I apologize for leaving out your least favorite.

  • Report this Comment On December 01, 2010, at 8:08 PM, rav55 wrote:

    You forgot one:

    The Hindenburgh Omen

  • Report this Comment On December 02, 2010, at 11:18 AM, XMFRael wrote:

    Nice work, Morgan. Now how about a list of the ridiculous gloom and doom prodictions on the back side of the crisis (granting, of course, that we might still be on our way to carrying pitchforks and burying our gold in the Canadian Rockies.)

  • Report this Comment On December 02, 2010, at 11:19 AM, XMFRael wrote:

    or is that "predictions? :)

  • Report this Comment On December 02, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Alg0rhythm wrote:

    big thumbs up for making your own blunder the top one, though I think there were others who made worse calls than you.

    I called gold at 1400 by the end of the summer.. we still don't have that.

    I did predict the bubble burst... I think a lot of people had to know about the subprime slime and the burst was going to come.

    I'm going to make another I think everybody should make come true in 2011.. clean tech and green in a big way in 2011... it's the only way out, and government will be willing to subsidize it in a big way to get the jobs....

    If energy efficiency becomes the law, every building, will have to be remodeled in someway, and if you throw in energy collection... a transitions going to cost probably average deal size of 80,000 per building times 100 million buildings in the US is 8 Trillion dollars on the table. Now big energy may not be a great fan of that because existing infrastructures, but everybody else has to see the 8 Trillion...

    there's technologies that haven't been applied yet... could be heating your house twice a week in the winter and cooling the same in the summer.

    Real products that real people want and need, especially with a Made in America sticker...

    Headlines might read Wall Street Saves America..

  • Report this Comment On December 02, 2010, at 11:37 PM, gs8212 wrote:

    Our gov takes on hugh financial obligations for both political and other reasons. Then when it goes south, wants to blame wall street banks, salaries, those that make more than $250K per year, i.e. whoever presents the biggest target.

    Wall street didn't enable Fannie/Freddie - Congress did. Subprime loans were made becasue F/F backed most of them.

    If the government is standing there saying we support expanded home ownership, and F/F will reinsure the loans we make fitting certain parameters, and any of us had the capacity to participate in that business, we'd do it.

    We need to drop the moralizing about "subprime slime" and take a look in the mirror at ourselves, and then take a look at our elected officials.

    F/F taken together as one will end up being the firect recipients of the most Federal largess.

    Just did a quick google of "size of bailouts" and there they are. $400 billion in Treasury purchases of F/F stock, and according to SIGTARP another $314 billion of potential exsposure due to commitments to buy mortgage-backed securitties from F/F (of course only should it be needed).

    IMHO, Congress is the primary culprit as they held the keys to the kingdom (our tax dollars), they made the commitments, and they encouraged irresponsible public policy that privatized the profits and socialized the losses.

    But its coming to an end soon I think. They are running out of our money.

  • Report this Comment On December 03, 2010, at 11:15 AM, TMFDiogenes wrote:

    gs, it might be tempting to put this all on F/F instead of Wall Street if that's what you're ideologically predisposed to do, but they fell just like everyone else. Wall St.'s to blame, and elected officials are to blame for F/F and for not being critical of Wall St.

    F/F was a drop in the bucket of total bailout exposure:

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/09/30/the-death-o...

  • Report this Comment On December 03, 2010, at 4:38 PM, seacraft23 wrote:

    Yes but how do I make money with this hindsight!!!

  • Report this Comment On December 03, 2010, at 5:03 PM, RockenD wrote:

    My $.10 predictions for 2011.

    Gold drops below $900

    NFLX drops below $120

    CX over $20

  • Report this Comment On December 03, 2010, at 5:53 PM, mpabraham wrote:

    Just a few of my predicitons...many more, but reluctant to be too lengthy. Comments appreciated.

    Dec 03, 2010

    HOUSING/REAL ESTATE. Will remain in the tank for at least three more years. Foreclosures will continue as more and more people choose the path of strategic default to escape their “under water” mortgage. This process will maintain a downward pressure on values. New home construction will remain stagnant in areas where current low home values are below the cost of building a similar home, thus leading to a housing shortage in those areas. The subsequent upward pressure of low supply and high demand will eventually raise the industry to a point of equilibrium.

    GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS. State and local governments nationwide are dealing with severe revenue shortfalls due to fallen real estate values, lower growth in consumer spending and the demands of underfunded public pensions. These factors will force these agencies to seek federal financial bailouts. Despite political resistance to such bailouts, the federal government will choose bailouts over the alternative; allowing massive debt defaults and bankruptcies by these public agencies. The bailouts will be funded through increased national borrowing and/or increased quantitative easing (money printing), a tactic that will likely lead to higher interest costs on the national debt.

    UNEMPLOYMENT. Will persist at current levels well into the coming decade. Reduced consumer spending will be a driving force, coupled with already accomplished business cost-cutting through automation, layoffs and shifting more work to existing workforce (productivity). Public employee layoffs will add to the unemployment burden. Many of the older unemployed will reach retirement age before securing another job, will tap into Social Security, what remains of their 401k’s and other savings, and will alter their lifestyles to the new realities. Many may sell their homes and move to lower cost regions to either buy or rent.

    We will also see a new wave of layoffs in public agencies. Generally, public employees, particularly in public safety and education, have been insulated from layoffs. But the realities of state and local government finances will leave these agencies with little choice but to severely cutback services and layoff excess staff.

    The threat or reality of these layoffs will lead to civil unrest and conflict between public employees and the private sector taxpayers that increasingly view public employees as a ‘privileged’ class.

  • Report this Comment On December 03, 2010, at 7:46 PM, car1020 wrote:

    I trust you because you are willing to admit your wrong. That takes a real man.

    Too bad the financial "experts" in Washington don't have the will or the guts - to do the right thing or to be admittedly wrong.

    Our crisis is real and is not over and you better own gold, silver and natural resources ....... to a better day ! LONG in the future.

  • Report this Comment On December 04, 2010, at 8:05 AM, gnassor wrote:

    Barney Franks assurance to America that Fanny and Freddy were fine should have.

  • Report this Comment On December 05, 2010, at 1:26 AM, Libertarian71 wrote:

    The person who was spot-in predicting the housing and financial crisis was Peter Schiff:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

  • Report this Comment On December 05, 2010, at 10:45 AM, HueWhite wrote:

    I was about to ask if Schiff's record has been examined. I had heard that he predicted what was coming (and in fact got in a car accident while listening to him squabble with some idiots at Fox), but his record in totality would be of more interest than a single correct prediction.

  • Report this Comment On December 06, 2010, at 10:46 AM, TMFDiogenes wrote:

    I predict the guy this buzzsaw responds to will have egg on his face at the end of the day:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/12/collateral-damage-mor...

  • Report this Comment On December 06, 2010, at 11:55 PM, car1020 wrote:

    Also, spot- in predicting the crisis w a y before it happened was Martin Weiss and his group.

    Sure wish I had been following those guys then and would be way more ahead, now. You guys should check them out at least from time to time.

  • Report this Comment On December 09, 2010, at 6:23 PM, fuzzylou wrote:

    Great article!

  • Report this Comment On December 10, 2010, at 1:46 AM, Libertarian71 wrote:

    TMFDiogenes said: "F/F was a drop in the bucket of total bailout exposure."

    You are missing the point. The point is no Fannie and Freddie's share of the bailout money. The point is that Fannie and Freddie were primary drivers of FUELING the housing and financial crisis to begin with. If banks didn't have Fannie and Freddie as a source to sell their loan portfolios to, the housing crisis could have been averted a great deal.

  • Report this Comment On December 15, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Libertarian71 wrote:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/73123.html

    Austrian Economists who Predicted the Housing Bubble.

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 1384604, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 7/23/2014 6:02:00 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement