It looks like Larry Lindsey is really, really fond of Oracle. I've never seen anyone blame the crash of the NASDAQ on U.S. v. Microsoft before:
The White House's senior economic advisers delivered an upbeat message on the US economy on Monday, predicting steady economic growth and rapid employment gains in 2004.
Posted by DeLong at February 10, 2004 03:52 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postWSJ.com - How to Sink the Tech Comeback: By LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY
Now that the Nasdaq has closed consistently back above 2000 it appears that much of the healing process from the collapse of the 1990s technology bubble is finally behind us. Sound macroeconomic policy prevented the resulting wealth destruction from producing a downward economic spiral like that of the '30s.
Going forward we must adhere to sound microeconomic policy as well if America is to retain its global leadership in technology. After the initial speculative frenzy and its collapse, the successful financing of new industries over the longer term requires a more stable environment. Clearly, competitive pressures are intense both within the existing market and from even newer technologies. But an equally important risk comes from public policy that is subject to a variety of political pressures to control the emerging market environment.
As a result, bad public-policy choices, especially in antitrust, can easily destabilize the new financial arrangements in the market. Today, there are four key factors that policy makers must take into consideration if we wish to preserve the newly found stability of our capital markets.
• First, public policy should respect the underlying franchise value of the recently created firms and industries. Although the Nasdaq bubble would have burst in any event, the actual timing of its collapse coincided with two public policy events that cast doubt on these franchise values. First, the antitrust division of the Justice Department announced its Microsoft suit and suggested remedies that many felt threatened its business model. Although some of Microsoft's competitors would supposedly have benefited from the suit, they soon found that their stock values plummeted as well as the viability of the industry was questioned.
Several weeks later, President Clinton joined Prime Minister Blair in declaring the human genome to be the common heritage of mankind. The biotech sector soon saw its equity values collapse too. If the human genome belongs to all of mankind, what is the value of patents on products developed from human-genome research?
Today, regulators must show more forbearance regarding policies that would harm the market value of the technology industry. As the economy continues to strengthen, more mergers will take place as the natural process of creative destruction continues. We have seen consolidation occur in a number of technology fields, including computer hardware and media players, and there is more consolidation planned in fields like business application software. The prospect of buyouts, in fact, is part of the market value of all technology firms. But if this route for business development is closed, the market value of technology firms will drop.
Of course, regulators must vigorously enforce laws that prohibit anticompetitive conduct. But whether emerging market structures will allow anticompetitive conduct in the future based on established rules of market concentration is a purely hypothetical exercise. It is far more important to focus on the reality of performance than the theoretical possibilities of what might happen based on structure.
• Second, market pricing is underpinned by the development of effective shareholder control. The regulatory environment should defer to shareholder decisions as much as possible regarding corporate control. The shareholders of an industry that has just seen its market value decimated are primarily focused on preserving what value is left and finding a way to rebuild. Both sustained economic growth and the long-term competitiveness of our high-tech industries requires that these shareholders succeed.
In the beginning, high-tech companies are owned chiefly by founders and a few key sponsors. As the market value rises, the shares are distributed more widely to a public that buys the shares because they like the concept the firm presents or the momentum of its stock price. These shareholders often back the founders in establishing poison pills that limit the possibility of a buyout because they believe they are betting on a winner and don't want to be part of some other organization.
After the market collapses and these shareholders liquidate, professional financial managers take over seeking value in stocks that have been knocked down too far. These value-oriented investors have no particular attachment to the original business model or its founders and are simply seeking to make a profit by acquiring undervalued assets and restructuring them in a way that will allow their resale to higher bidders. This process is key to rationalizing an industry and making it viable in the long term. Public-policy actions that inhibit this process -- by blocking mergers and takeovers on allegedly competitive grounds or by overly protecting the poison pill arrangements of the initial founders -- can do substantial damage to the long-term viability of the high-tech marketplace.
• Third, public-policy must recognize that the competitive threats to the high-tech industry are numerous and by themselves sharply limit the scope for anticompetitive conduct. This is particularly true in our highly globalized market. A famous historical example from the late 1960s and early '70s was the antitrust position that General Motors could not exceed a 60% market share of U.S. auto production. This position was quickly made ridiculous by the invasion of Japanese cars. Similarly, the once dominant positions of IBM and Xerox quickly eroded. The reality is that the extreme amount of competition in the global market is the best check to anticompetitive business practices.
• Finally, mergers can also be a way to increase competition. If two medium-size firms merge, they may end up better positioned to challenge the largest firm in the market. Leveraging new economies of scale is a way for smaller firms to reclaim market share lost to the largest firms.
* * *
It is somewhat ironic that, after all the high-tech equity market has been through, one of the greater threats to its overall valuation is not technological or even competitive, it is public policy. The months ahead will determine whether the recent rise in the Nasdaq reflects a new level of maturity for these emerging industries, or whether it will disappear because public-policy makers are unwilling to allow time for these industries to fully recover from the excesses of the '90s.
Not sure how this has anything to do with Oracle. Didn't Oracle support the antitrust suit? Larry Ellison is certainly one of the big ego types who would just love to see Gates come crashing down(not that I wouldn't)
Posted by: crayz on February 10, 2004 04:11 PMI have seen some blame the whole recession on the Microsoft anti-trust case but then not someone with a Ph.D. in economics.
Posted by: Harold McClure on February 10, 2004 04:20 PMDoes Lindsey understand how the review process for mergers work? Both the government and the companies wishing to merge consult with economists who understand the economics of synergies v. creating market power. Both sides view the potential policy benefits of the merger v. the possible anti-competitive aspects. Even if the government staff thinks that the costs outweigh the benefits, the company's experts are invited to put forth their own analysis. So all that he is suggesting already takes place during this review process. Now if he wishes to agree with Don Luskin's position on the Dreyer-Nestle merger (never mind the monopolization as long as shareholders reap a capital gain), then I might understand his spin. But I still have to respectively disagree.
Posted by: Harold McClure on February 10, 2004 04:27 PMHonestly, can we really consider Larry Linsay a real economist at this point? He's more of a political hack than anything else.
Posted by: noam chimpsky on February 10, 2004 04:37 PMBrad--you were wondering how Bush got it in his head about overzealous regulators? I think we have an answer.
Posted by: Rob on February 10, 2004 04:39 PMI don't think he's talking about mergers in general; the whole piece really does sound like a Microsoft freedom-to-innovate piece. given the inclusion of the Clinton/Blair genome statement, perhaps more of a freedom-to-monopolize (as long as you're American) screed.
back in the day, my early judgement (as always, too early) was, "it'll end in tears." I have the trading records -- and month after month after month of painful put expirations -- to prove it. to tell me, "regulators must show more forbearance" is really irritating.
I know Stacey Schreft says irrational investors promote financial stability. still, I have this self-serving idea that markets work best when traders who were right make money.
ref: http://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedkrw/99-01.html
Noam -- I think the word you're looking for to describe LL now is "shill".
Posted by: gwailo on February 10, 2004 04:54 PMeh? I don't think that anyone expected that the antitrust case would have any significant effect on MS. And indeed it didn't. And the tech bust was mainly in the internet/telecom area where MS had (and has) negligible presence.
MS is a two-product company. Windows and Office.
Odd.
Posted by: am on February 10, 2004 05:24 PMI bet Larry Lindsay has his own reasons for writing this. I think the kids are calling them Franklins.
Posted by: david on February 10, 2004 05:35 PM"Oracle" was mentioned presumably because Oracle is trying to buy up its cross-bay competitor Peoplesoft, with the explicit intention of shutting the company down and migrating all of its customers to Oracle. This has, unsuprisingly, had trouble getting support from the courts, the public, and Peoplesoft itself.
Having spent a blessedly brief period of time as an op-ed ghostwriting whore at a Washington PR firm, my only question about Lindsey's piece is: Who's paying Larry's retainer? Microsoft?
Posted by: Billmon on February 10, 2004 06:54 PMMy portfolio would agree with Big Larry. I had 1,000 shares each of Microsoft & IBM and when Joel Reise pulled the trigger on GatesCO some nice profits took a trip south. I don't agree with Larrynomics but his point is free market v. govt. regulation.
Posted by: G Ward on February 10, 2004 07:19 PMI've heard a couple of people claim that the Microsoft antitrust case brought down the NASDAQ.
It is, of course, bovine scatology.
One of the people who supports this idea is media whore (he created the "Gore invented the internet" lie, and is to this day proud of it) and draw by crayon libertarion Declan McCullagh.
Oh my god. Did he actually blame the collapse partially on saying that the human genome is a common human heritage?
Yes, Larry - and many of us also think that patenting already existing plants is bad.
Crazy commie leftist treehuggers all, I know.
But Larry, I'm sure you will be happy to pay the patent holders of your genome the necessary fees - and won't mind if they reclaim your biological material if you don't cough. Yes?
Posted by: Ian Welsh on February 10, 2004 07:45 PMReading comprehension alert! Lindsay doesn't say that the Microsoft case brought down the NASDAQ, he says that the bubble would have popped in any case, but that in THIS case it was the MS case that triggered the rush to the exit.
Which, as I recall, is pretty accurate. The popping of the tech stock bubble correlates almost perfectly with the the first bits of news about how serious the trial could be for MS's business model. Fears drove MS stock down, which in turn seems to have triggered a selloff across the board. The rest, as they say, is history.
The correlation was so direct that I'm surprised to find someone who thinks otherwise.
Posted by: Bones on February 10, 2004 07:45 PMWhy would driving MS stock down drive anything else down? If anything, it should have released a lot of 'Fear, doubt and uncertainty' in many, many tech stocks. Remember that most innovation for a while hasn't been by Microsoft. Microsoft is just in a really, really good position to harvest the fruits of others' innovations.
Posted by: Barry on February 10, 2004 07:54 PMThis is really a sorry situation -- a presumed star of "the new economy" can't do any better than babbling something like "what's good for GM is good for America"! Well, look, if you let people to become software engineers without first getting a Harvard style arts and science education, then that's what you get: an aspiring software baron. What a pity!
Posted by: bulent on February 10, 2004 08:19 PMIt is always funny (not fun though) to see such a world view articulated -- growing stock valuations are the underlying purpose of the economy, and whatever material (in the sense of everything but financial) benefits individuals or society could possibly derive out of it must give way to this goal. It's worshipping of numbers, not social wealth.
bulent: No, it's not even "what's good for GM". It's "what's good for the Dow". Although in a metaphorical sense there is probably not that much difference.
I suspect that writers of such stuff, as well as the people whose bidding they are effectively doing, benefit less from the society that they are proposing than from a more equitable one where people would presumably live in a more peaceful, less stressful, and happier way, and don't ever realize it.
Stock market itself will survive -- I mean even the horse race is some sort of stock market. That ain't the problem. It is their "business model" that they worry about, and rightly so. As they once went land-grabbing, oil grabbing, they now want to go "knowledge-grabbing", I guess, but it won't work. It just won't work. They too sense that, but they find it difficult to accept. So they indulge in silly things like invading Iraq -- which, by the way, FT did not exactly oppose.
Posted by: Bulent on February 10, 2004 09:00 PMLindsey is really, really insane. The basis of his epistle, that US v MSoft and BC v BioTech caused the collapse of NASDAQ, is like blaming overall decreases in violent crime on increased prosecution of rape (MSoft) and armed robbery (BioTech patent of life & agrarian traditions), by that, floating a negative spin on how bad the decrease in crime is on Homeland Defense hiring, and maybe we should just relax law enforcement!
The clinical term is psychotic. Completely out of touch with reality. Talking out of his ass! Anyone who was vertical in 1998 knows perfectly well the reason the NASDAQ crashed was because Wall Street had been spinning gold out of straw, del-$ stock valuations had gone near vertical, and then in 2000, a new sheriff came to town.
Vive Bien Ton Bon Temps Roul - meets - Dracula.
The economy tanked right after Inauguration Day.
Blame it on the neo-cons. At least the economic statistics and policies back that proposition! Then the economy went well in the tank in 2001, so there is every reason to surmise 911 WTC was a feint to pull the economy out of augering in,
which it most surely will have, sooner or later.
After all, in 1951 some idiot flew a B-24 into the Empire State Building with little effect. It would only take a few $100K to Pakistani Secret Service, high level collusion and some jihad-preaching agent provocateurs to set 19 lost souls on a mission to save American Dream (and with it, the loot robbed by the oligarchists).
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2001/12/120701_Pakistans_Sponsorted_Terrorists.html
Now Khan is being fingered, and absolved, for funneling atomic secrets to the Evil Sisters.
As if everyone in Defense wasn't aware of the Pakistani rear door link back in the 1990's! CIA, Paki's, KGB, Israeli Mossad = BLACK OPS.
It's a giant charade, and it was being admirably played until Wall Street got greedy, damn them to hell, then Bush rode into town ala Cat Balou, and his handlers figured a little barn storming would bring the economy out of its death spiral.
Now everything is screw the pooch, hell in a hand basket, world upside down catty-whompus.
Who cares what that little prick Lindsey has to say, the whirlwind will soon be upon us! Savvy theatre-goer's are moving toward the exits.
Now get back to work.
Posted by: Mea Tspac on February 10, 2004 11:09 PMHaving read a bit about him, this kind of sophomoric piece doesn't surprise me at all. All the more so, given that it's on the Op-Ed page of the WSJ, which is where bad ideas like the gold standard seem to be reborn.
What we need is to create an anti-Lindsey, so that they can cancel each other out with a dull flash of light. I'll even propose an editorial thesis for any takers: "Equities in companies run by CEOs tightly aligned with conservative Republicans tend to underperform the market over long periods of time. The underperformance and occasional bankruptcy is related to a philosophy advocating poor corporate governance and a fundamental disrespect for common shareholders as well as employees...."
Posted by: Pete Coffee on February 10, 2004 11:44 PMLindsey makes some interesting but confusing comments about shareholder control. I am going to assume that the concept behind his confusing remarks is the thesis developed in the early 1980s that the reason the stock market had done poorly over the past decade was that management
interest was not aligned with shareholder interest. Consequently CEO and other senior management need to be paid in stocks, options, etc. that would aline their interest with
shareholders and cause CEO to focus on creating shareholder value. Many people argue that this change in CEO compensation was a major factor in the stck market boom of the 1980s- 1990s.
If this thesis had any validity you should have seen a shift in earnings (profit) growth associated with shift in CEO compensation.
However, the data does not show any trend change in earnings growth. There was no slow down in earnings growth in the 1970s to explain the poor stock market performance and there was no speed up in earnings growth after the early 1980s and
the shift in the way CEOs were compensated.
The poor stock maket of the 1970s was due to high interest rates and inflation driving down the market PE and the better stock market in the 1980s-1990s was due to lower inflation and rates driving up PEs. In both period S&P trend earnings growth was roughly 7% -- the double digit eps growth in the 1990s was simply a trough to peak rebound. So what CEOs did was largely irrelevent to what happened to the stock market.
Base on this record the Lindsey argument or thesis that good or bad govt policy played a significant role in the 1990s bubble has no basis in fact.
His article puts up a strawman and shoots the same strawman down. It has little relationship to the facts.
This article made me think of Adam Smith's observations about the need for the government to destroy monopoly. And his general observation that the market works best when policies are designed to maximize the interests of consumers and not coddle the interests of producers. Smith notes that it is only in overcoming obstacles that producers create value added to an economy.
Lindsays ideas look like a receipe for monopoly and all its ills. He needs an opt ed smack down.
Posted by: Scott McArthur on February 11, 2004 07:13 AM" I've never seen anyone blame the crash of the NASDAQ on U.S. v. Microsoft before..."
Bittlingmayer and Hazlett, Journal of Financial Economics 55 (2000) 329-359
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/hazlett/rahazl11.pdf
Abstract
Antitrust enforcement that efficiently constrains Microsoft's behavior benefits firms
supplying complements to and/or substitutes for Microsoft's operating system and
applications software. However, from 1991 through 1997, 29 reports of federal antitrust
enforcement action against Microsoft were accompanied by declines in the value of an
index of 159 computer industry firms (excluding Microsoft). The mean loss to those firms
exceeded $1 billion per event. Eight retreats or setbacks in enforcement were associated
with increased computer sector value. Thus, financial markets reveal compelling evidence
against the joint hypothesis that (a) Microsoft conduct is anticompetitive and (b) antitrust
policy enforcement produces net efficiency gains. ( 2000 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights
reserved.)
Oh good lord. I worked at dot-com startups from Dow 5000 to Dow 12000. They failed or failed to catch fire because (a) their business models were loopy, and/or (b) they spent money like water and either went on life support or couldn't find another set of suckers.
Did the anti-trust suits against MS have any effect on the viability of the companies or the legitimacy of their business models? No. Definitively no. Someone pointed out above that stocks in Silicon Valley should have risen when MS was hit by the Reno Justice department, given how often MS was handing companies down here their lunch. Most of the companies in Silicon Valley had at best a tangential relationship with MS, and usually it was antagonistic.
But it wasn't software that caused the Nasdaq crash. It was the fact that each retail micro-niche had 12 internet companies with P/E ratios of 100, each vying to sell products cheaper than the other to everyone on the planet, all with free shipping. The VC theory was that these 12 would fight it out and the 2 left would have all the cash and justify the P/E; what happened was that 6 failed and everyone rushed for the exits on the other 6.
Of course Lindsey (and everyone else on the Bush economic team) would have no clue as the actual etiology, because they work in rust-belt industries too big to fail, or oil and finance. This is just another way for this economically-incompetent administration to pass the buck.
Posted by: yowsa on February 11, 2004 08:57 AMI also worked at startups and have the opposite opinion of yowsa. What was fueling the insanity was that everyone wanted to be "the next Microsoft". When it became clear that Microsoft's valuation might not be able to grow forever (and this was a company with a real business model), people looked more closely at companies with business models that were only promises of future profitability and removed the last term in their series - the very small probability of infinite valuation (a la Microsft). Since that term in the series was the only thing providing the model with a positive net present value, prices collapsed.
Posted by: elliottg on February 11, 2004 11:32 AMMaybe Lindsey would benefit from reading Krugman or some of the books on his reviewing list:
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ExecsGoneWild.html
Posted by: bakho on February 11, 2004 08:00 PMVery strange indeed. The Economist, hardly an anti-free trade publication, has over and over pointed out that Microsoft does nothing more than leverage its monopoly of Windows to enrich itself and screw the rest of the software industry. They also point out that Microsoft has failed in pretty much every venture outside of Windows and Office. Odd, that, if it is such a great innovative company.
The solution proposed by the Justice Department - splitting up the company - really is the only sure solution to solve this problem. The Economist's words, not mine.
That being said, as a Mac user, I actually find a real benefit to the Microsoft monopoly. I get to use a better product, enjoy higher-quality software, and much better security. These factors make me think that Lindsey is right that Microsoft's day of reckoning isn't that far away. Perhaps the combination of the Linux movement, etc., will make this whole debate seem silly. when people en masse leave Windows for lower-cost and higher -quality alternatives. And then Microsoft will be just another corporate dinosaur whose time to die has come.
Posted by: SZ on February 12, 2004 07:07 AM
free hilton paris sex video HERE!!! the best SEX VIDEO MOVIES! Girls get fucked!
beastiality and animal sex stories here. sweet dogs sex,horses sex,pigs fucking,snakes sex, dogs oral job, horses blowjob.
the best tranny site on the net. young transexuals here!
free incest stories, incest sex, mom and son, father and daughter
young lolitas, teens, teens sex, teens sex video
anime porn, cartoon sex, pokemon sex
asian beauties, sweet asian girls get fucked. chinease sex. enjoy them
the best young gays sex. great cocks of the huge gays. gay sex video, gax pics, gay porno adult movies
the best galleries with the best young girls on the net.. sex, sex, sex, sex!
INDIAN SEX WORLD! SWEET INDIAN GIRLS HERE!
young lesbians. lesbian sex. lesbian video, lesbian sex
sweet hot young girls
free hilton paris sex video MATURE, MATURE SEX, MATURE MOMS, MATURE LADIES, GRANNY MATURE
http://www.mature-sex-moms-porn.com
free hilton paris sex video HERE!!! the best SEX VIDEO MOVIES! Girls get fucked!
http://www.free-hilton-paris-sex-video.com
beastiality and animal sex stories here. sweet dogs sex,horses sex,pigs fucking,snakes sex, dogs oral job, horses blowjob.
http://www.beastiality-animal-sex-stories.com
the best tranny site on the net. young transexuals here!
http://www.trannysexmovie.com
free incest stories, incest sex, mom and son, father and daughter
http://www.free-incest-stories-site.com
young lolitas, teens, teens sex, teens sex video
http://www.teen-sex-porn-models.com
anime porn, cartoon sex, pokemon sex
http://www.anime-porn-sex-xxx.com
asian beauties, sweet asian girls get fucked. chinease sex. enjoy them
http://www.asian-girls-porn-sex.com
the best young gays sex. great cocks of the huge gays. gay sex video, gax pics, gay porno adult movies
http://www.free-gay-video-clip.com
the best galleries with the best young girls on the net.. sex, sex, sex, sex!
http://www.gals4all.com
INDIAN SEX WORLD! SWEET INDIAN GIRLS HERE!
http://www.indian-sex-porno-movies-stories.com
young lesbians. lesbian sex. lesbian video, lesbian sex
http://www.lesbian-sex-porn-pics-stories.com
sweet hot young girls
http://www.sweethotgirls.com
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program.
Posted by: Miller Steve on March 17, 2004 11:42 PMMediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.
Posted by: Jacob Sarah on May 2, 2004 03:16 PMThe truth is outhere
Posted by: Gershbein Reid on May 3, 2004 02:25 AMyes
Posted by: weight loss on May 29, 2004 09:47 AMToon sex. Nude toon photos
Posted by: Toon sex. Nude toon photos on June 12, 2004 06:34 PMSuck that cock - amateur hunk gets blow-jobs his gay partner in the table.
Posted by: Suck that cock - amateur hunk gets blow-jobs his gay partner in the table. on June 20, 2004 01:28 PMA stopped car does not imply a dead driver.
Posted by: Keating Erin on June 30, 2004 07:04 AMWOW! I like this guestbook... that's cool
http://www.online-dating-service.com
online dating service
http://www.free-anal-porn-sex.com
free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies
free anal sex movies
http://gay-men-sex-porn.com
gay sex video
gay sex video
http://gay-men-sex-porn.com
free gay sex video
gay sex video
http://www.gay-men-sex-porn.com
free gay sex video
gay sex video
http://www.gay-men-sex-porn.com
gay sex
gay sex movies
http://www.gay-sex.name
gay sex
gay sex movies
http://gay-sex.name
asian sex
asian sex movies
http://www.asian-sex.name
asian sex
asian sex movies
http://asian-sex.name
animal sex
animal sex movies
http://www.animal-sex.name
animal sex
animal sex movies
http://animal-sex.name
free anime cartoon porn
free hentai cartoon porn
http://www.free-hentai-cartoon-porn.com
free hentai cartoon porn
free anime cartoon porn
http://free-hentai-cartoon-porn.com
http://www.free-lesbian-porn-sex-movies.com
free lesbian porn sex movies
free lesbian porn sex movies
http://free-lesbian-porn-sex-movies.com
free lesbian porn sex movies
free lesbian porn sex movies
http://free-lesbian-porn-sex-movies.com
public nudity
public nudity
http://www.public-nudity.name
public nudity
free public nudity
http://public-nudity.name
indian sex movies stories
indian porn movies stories
http://www.indian-sex-porn-movies-stories.com
indian sex movies stories
http://indian-sex-porn-movies-stories.com
indian sex movies stories
http://www.free-rape-stories-videos.com
free rape stories videos
free rape stories videos
free rape stories videos
http://free-rape-stories-videos.com
free rape stories videos
http://www.sexy-naked-girls-porn.com
sexy naked girls porn
sexy naked girls porn
sexy naked girls porn
sexy naked girls porn
http://sexy-naked-girls-porn.com
---
dog sex
http://dog--sex.com
animal sex
http://animal--sex.info
shaved pussy, bushless pussy
http://shaved-pussy.biz
foot sex, feet sex, legs sex
http://foot-sex.biz
animal sex, horse sex, god sex, rabbit sex, fish sex
http://horse-sex.ws
hand job, woman mastrubation, woman looks at man mastrubation
http://www.hand-job.us
Incest stories, incest sex, free incest stories mom son incest, father daughter incest
http://www.incest-stories.biz
HUN YELOW PAGE, THE HUN, THEHUN.COM, THEHUN.NET, THE HUN TGP, THE HUN YELLOW HUN YELOW PAGE, THE HUN, THEHUN.COM, THEHUN.NET, THE HUN TGP, THE HUN YELLOW
http://www.the-hun-yellow-page-tgp.com
free hilton paris sex video MATURE, MATURE SEX, MATURE MOMS, MATURE LADIES, GRANNY MATURE
http://www.mature-sex-moms-porn.com
free hilton paris sex video HERE!!! the best SEX VIDEO MOVIES! Girls get fucked!
http://www.free-hilton-paris-sex-video.com
beastiality and animal sex stories here. sweet dogs sex,horses sex,pigs fucking,snakes sex, dogs oral job, horses blowjob.
http://www.beastiality-animal-sex-stories.com
the best tranny site on the net. young transexuals here!
http://www.trannysexmovie.com
free incest stories, incest sex, mom and son, father and daughter
http://www.free-incest-stories-site.com
young lolitas, teens, teens sex, teens sex video
http://www.teen-sex-porn-models.com
anime porn, cartoon sex, pokemon sex
http://www.anime-porn-sex-xxx.com
asian beauties, sweet asian girls get fucked. chinease sex. enjoy them
http://www.asian-girls-porn-sex.com
the best young gays sex. great cocks of the huge gays. gay sex video, gax pics, gay porno adult movies
http://www.free-gay-video-clip.com
the best galleries with the best young girls on the net.. sex, sex, sex, sex!
http://www.gals4all.com
INDIAN SEX WORLD! SWEET INDIAN GIRLS HERE!
http://www.indian-sex-porno-movies-stories.com
young lesbians. lesbian sex. lesbian video, lesbian sex
http://www.lesbian-sex-porn-pics-stories.com
sweet hot young girls
http://www.sweethotgirls.com