>

There is a absurd yet fascinating article in the Sunday Times by Gretchen Morgenson, titled A Mortgage Tornado Warning, Unheeded. It is is stirring and emotional.

What makes it fascinating is yet another story told about prescient warnings in advance not heeded about the coming mortgage crisis.

What makes it absurd is its complete lack of recognition of how large companies operate, how businesses interact with the public, how humans behave.

Consider the reality of how businesses operate in the world. No (bizarrely according to this column) huge corporations do not sift through an enormous volume of incoming communications, including emails, letters, and phone calls to pull out that one important warning from non-clients, and make major shifts in their business models and operations. This is not how firms whose goals are to profit maximize on behalf of their shareholders operate.

I speak from experience. I spent the better part of 2005-06 discussing the imminent housing collapse, warning about valuations, showing how the collapse would play out into the broader economy. These were with clients I had an existing relationship with, a good track record and an established degree of trust.

How did that work out? I ended up getting the following Hugh McLeod line printed on the back of my business card: “I can’t take this shit anymore, he said, mistakenly.” Its now a print hanging in my office.

They had their models, they thanked me for the color, but there was simply too much money to be made.

The thing to blame companies for is not that they ignored some outsider’s warnings; Rather, it is  that they themselves failed to recognize the many warning signs of the coming housing collapse. This is the true failure of the Mortgage Lenders, Wall Street Secritizers, GSEs, Real Estate Agents, Appraisers, and of course, Central Bankers. Their expertise should have alerted them to the obvious coming tornado. Or worse — and IMO criminally — they saw it all coming and went about running up risky exposure regardless. The massive smash and grab, break the bank, snatch huge IBGYBG bonuses, and split before anyone noticed was the order of the day.

It is not that they ignored the public warnings.  If the economy is dependent upon large companies recognizing broad warnings of economic danger coming from the public, we are all doomed. Rather, it is that they should have known better on their own. That was their massive failure.

>

Previously:
Mistakenly (April 7th, 2011)

More Ignored Warnings About Bad Mortgages circa 2003 (October 11th, 2008)

Putting an end to Wall Street’s ‘I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone’ bonuses (March 12, 2011)

Source:
A Mortgage Tornado Warning, Unheeded
Gretchen Morgenson
NYT: February 4, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/business/mortgage-tornado-warning-unheeded.html

Category: Corporate Management, Credit, Real Estate, Really, really bad calls

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

36 Responses to “Housing Tornado Warnings Were an Exercise in Futility”

  1. hotei13 says:

    If it was an intentional “smash and grab” then it was a massive success.

  2. Jim67545 says:

    In the absence of effective regulation the capitalist solution is to let a business go rogue, perpetrate some illegal activity, get caught, end up in the court system, get prosecuted, fined, imprisioned, whatnot and serve as an example to all their peers as what not to do unless terrible financial sanctions will result. Think of the BP oil spill as a case in point. This is, more or less, the anti-regulation approach. This, of course, ignores those initially harmed. They are on their own to be an agent in the solution (join the class action, sue the bastards.)

    However, there is no answer by the anti-regulation folks to the question, “what happens if (nearly) EVERY company in a given industry goes rogue at the same time?” If we did not regulate meat packing, for example, and every meat packer decided to extend their ground beef with some poisonous substance, what then?

    That is what happened in the housing mess and the only safeguard a civilized society can have is government regulation + effective enforcement.

  3. Stan Klein says:

    The primary model for American business has changed. In prior years it was making money by providing a better product or service, taking care of customers, taking care of employees (including good-faith, honest relations with employee unions), and taking care of investors. It is now getting super-rich as quickly as possible by screwing customers, screwing employees, screwing investors, screwing anyone else that can be found to screw, and pumping money into the political arena to maintain the new business model. If the customers don’t like being screwed and leave, buy out the competitor they go to and try to make sure they have nowhere else to go. If the employees don’t like being screwed, prevent their unionizing to fight the screwing and try to make sure they can’t go anywhere without being screwed. If investors don’t like being screwed, keep them from finding out and make sure they have to complain to a kangaroo court. If the other people you can find to screw don’t like being screwed, hide the screwing in complex derivatives that leave very few fingerprints and concoct a mythological explanation that blames somebody else for their situation.

  4. Jim67545 says:

    Incidentally, I believe that one reason the warnings went unheeded may have been that people may have realized that SOME originators were doing this stuff but not that MOST originators were. This makes a big difference when it comes to the ramifications of the eventual you-know-what hitting the fan.

    If SOME were doing it, just tightening up credit standards and more carefully qualifying originators would fix the problem. If MOST were doing it then the conclusion would be that the entire market is filled with dedicated bad players and one best should avoid investing in that market entirely. The latter would take years, if not a decade or more to restore trust through observing the performance of mortgages originated under reformed behaviour.

  5. JimRino says:

    The same situation with Global Warming and Exxon.
    Fk the world, we’re making money in oil, tarsands, and now Fracking, and we don’t give a damn about your kids, or the CEO’s kids. We don’t care would could turn this around with Solar and Wind.
    We are a Mindless Money Machine, and we only care about numbers in a spreadsheet, even if that spreadsheet becomes worthless, we’ll have the highest score.

    And win the price of Supreme Idiot.
    Exxon, we pay for Stupidity.

  6. flocktard says:

    It’s a great point, but another thing that prevented throwing the anchor over the side was, that who in this country, EVEN KNOWING THE CONSEQUENCES, would have the guts to shut down the job creation machine that housing is?

    After a nation has shed 30 million manufacturing jobs over the years, this is all we got, baby. You can’t build homes in China, and whaddya know, this is where the flow of funds went to.

    Can you imagine a member of Congress or a banker standing up and stating “we really have to start lending and building less than we are for everyone’s good. ”

    Someone pointed out this week that Facebook’s market cap stood near that of Boeing’s.

    Facebook employs all of 3500 people, which would not even staff one shift at one Boeing plant. The coming years are going to be so hard on us all.

  7. rd says:

    There is also the Watergate Principle at work:

    Ultimately, the big thing that takes big institutions down is the cover-up by the highest levels, not the initial actions taken at lower levels.

    I am sure that there was a lot of money to be made quickly in the housing banking sector. These are big corporations that tend to be slow at getting their day-to-day operations in line with new initiatives but at that moment they often believe they are doing the right things.

    As the train was going off the bridge into the water, it appears that the “Oh shit” moment was then accompanied by flurried activities to sweep everything under the rug, short their own activities, or dump trash onto customers in order to keep the gravy train rolling. This is when you can really separate the wheat from the chaff with respect to ethical and moral people in the big organizations. It appears that there was very little ethical wheat in the highest levels of the financial sector.

    The chaff need to be investigated and prosecuted while the wheat need to be rewarded. Unfortunately, it appears that the opposite has occurred over the past five years and this has been a major failing of both the Bush and Obama Administrations.

    Once again, the Obama Adminsitration has a similar scenario with potentially dire consequences for the entire securities industry over the next decade with the MF Global bankruptcy. This is a major test of this administration to see if the rule of law as well as moral and ethical obligations means anything. So far Obama, Geithner, and Holder are failing miserably as they did in prosecuting the 2008-09 financial crisis. I believe that the Obama Administration will delay the recovery of the financial sector by a decade by not cleaning it up so that confidence can be restored.

  8. farmera1 says:

    “This is not how firms whose goals are to profit maximize on behalf of their shareholders operate.”

    Nope this is being much too kind to these corporations (aka people) . The managers/ceos IMHO, and others opinion, could care less about maximizing profits for share holders, they are much more concerned with maximizing their own wealth. As John Bogle of Vanguard fame says in his book (THE BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM by Bogle) we have moved from ownership capitalism to managerial capitalism. If you are managing to maximize owners returns you have to at least give some thought to the long term. If you are managing to maximize managerial (CEO etc) wealth you could care less about the long term. It is strictly IBGYBG (I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone) mentality. Maximize short term profits, goose the stock price and exercise those tens/hundreds of million in options. Get rich quick baby, get rich. Customers, stock owners are you kidding me. They don’t even enter into the picture. This quarters options is all that matters. Like Fuld from Lehman walk away with hundreds of millions in bonus pay, manage the company right into the ground. Worked like a charm.

  9. “…If it was an intentional “smash and grab”…”

    hotei13,

    there wasn’t any ‘if’ about it. BR laid it out, the Truth of it, for you..

    “…they saw it all coming and went about running up risky exposure regardless. The massive smash and grab, break the bank, snatch huge IBGYBG bonuses, and split before anyone noticed was the order of the day…”

    Wake up! and stop day-dreaming in “Study Hall”..~

  10. Sechel says:

    Doesn’t sound so crazy. Wall Street firms didn’t learn their behavior over-night and goes hand in hand with seeing MERS created back in the late 90′s.

  11. EMichael says:

    Cue Upton Sinclair:

    ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’

  12. stonedwino says:

    The “new American business model” of screwing anyone and getting with what you can is thanks to the Republicans with help from DINOs over the last 30 years…many Americans voted Republican incessantly looking for the purported lower taxes and lower regulations and now we are reaping what we sowed…Human nature is such that neither pure Capitalism nor pure Marxism is possible, given human nature – we all need supervision and regulation to an extent.

  13. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    I completely agree that the people who were most responsible for seeing this coming failed. They failed utterly.

    That *is* the point.

    The rest is elaboration.

  14. Nuggz says:

    I agree with JimRino.

    But think of it this way, in Texas fracking is nearly God-like.

    It is simply turning a shithole into a bigger shithole.

  15. louis says:

    “No, the most important ingredient for a sustained recovery is to reform the abuses that allowed for such a spectacular bubble of excess to exist in the first place.” – Jesse Cafe Americain.

  16. econimonium says:

    I think everyone gives people too much credit for thinking deeply here when it comes to the entire mortgage debacle. Furthermore you have to understand how top executives generally work and their probable personality profile. Full disclosure: I’m now a CEO. So let’s hope I’m more self-reflective than what I’m about to talk about.

    You can’t manage everything so a lot of what goes on is done by your lieutenants. Your lieutenants, slavering either to make it to your chair one day or to hold on to their job that they’re generally incompetent at, will not tell you the truth unless you make them pee themselves in a Monday morning meeting in front of everyone. Most CEOs, so self-absorbed by nature and never told anything they didn’t want to hear from the parents to their teachers to now their co-workers, live in a self-imposed vacuum where they are right and you just don’t disagree or find yourself being asked to leave. And if you take a look at the mean tenure lately of most CEOs, they’re deathly afraid of losing their own job by being too honest about anything. So you have to perfect setup for this shitstorm because no one was going to stop the music and, even if people did say what was going to happen, it never made it up far enough for it to make a difference.

    I’ve seen it all first-hand…from a seasoned “serial entrepreneur” nb whenever you see that term think “great at swindling VCs out of money by slick talk while padding his income until he can sell off the hunk of junk to one of the VC’s buddies or, even better IPO while the company’s still hemorrhaging money so you can run home with a bucket of cash while foisting your stock off to gullible pension funds etc so the market swallows the loss” to the 28 year old “wonder boy” who couldn’t pay attention long enough to form a complete sentence and serially fired any executive who figured it out until, after one such incident, the VCs finally figured out that something was seriously wrong. Where were they all along at the board meeting? Well, busy trying to deny that anything was seriously wrong, of course because no one wants a hard discussion.

    Facebook is the latest example. You really think, in the rarefied air of the Zuckerberg suite, that any serious discussion is now going on about how, given the numbers and the propensity of people to ignore Facebook ads, you’re going to justify this valuation by the numbers? Are you going to be the executive who brings up the actual truth? Or are you going to go on with everyone there, lying to yourselves and everyone else so you can suck up billions on your stock options? If you’re the IB on this deal, what are you going to do? I’ll tell you what…you hype the shit out of this because, in the end, if people buy into the hype and shoot the stock to the moon, it’s not *your* problem, even if it does bankrupt granny’s pension fund in the end. Where, oh where, has the concept of actually building something useful, and deriving value by the numbers gone??

  17. algernon says:

    They all responded to the same false price signal: interest rates artificially depressed by the central banks of the world [not least the Fed].

    Isn’t fiat money so wonderful? Who needs the supply of savings to matter when the Bernanke has his computer mouse.

  18. Joe Friday says:

    What the HELL has happened with Gretchen Morgenson ?

    First it was that STOOPID book attempting to blame Fannie & Freddie, and now this.

  19. GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

    Brings to mind the Chuck Prince quote: “As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.”

    I think he saw at least some of the danger, but still wasn’t willing to take the necessary action. Possibilities include:
    1) He wasn’t willing to underperform his competitors for even one quarter in return for reducing his company’s risk. Wall Street has become obsessed with quarterly performance over all other factors in valuing companies.
    2) He thought both that he was smart enough to get out at exactly the right moment, and thought everyone else wouldn’t be trying also to get out and jamming the exit.
    3) Herd mentality affects CEOs just as much as any other humans.
    4) The factors cited in BR’s post.

    Obviously, it could have been a combination of all of the above. But it certainly proves that “no one could see it coming” is a lie.

  20. DeDude says:

    Econimonium;

    “Where, oh where, has the concept of actually building something useful, and deriving value by the numbers gone??”

    It got to hard. Now there are so many easier ways to make a lot of money. What you are saying is that the CEO’s are clueless fools doing evil things, others say they are evil people doing evil things. Probably there are examples of both out there in the real world. What is clear is that the business world is increasingly run by sociopaths who feel no responsibility towards anybody else but themselves. I guess that kind of attitude makes it most likely for a person to advance up through the corporate ranks and end up as a CEO.

  21. albnyc says:

    Gretchen never had a clue. An agenda, yes. But no clue.

  22. RW says:

    Gretchen Morgenson has done some good work has has also committed real howlers, some bad enough that a certain degree of skepticism is warranted when reading her articles.

    Those of us fortunate enough to discover the Calculated Risk blog back in 2006 not only knew what was coming but actually began to understand it in considerable depth; e.g., Calculated Risk was rather explicitly not an investing blog but some of my most confident and profitable short positions came as a result of understanding what was happening in 2007 and why it would get worse before it got better.

    A key contributor to that understanding was Calculated Risk’s co-blogger, “Tanta,” who not only knew the back room story of mortgage lending in toto but was a skilled writer; often amusing and sometimes very cutting.

    Some of Tanta’s most cutting remarks were directed at Gretchen Morgenson because, in Tanta’s view, Morgenson had a habit of writing authoritatively on subjects she didn’t completely understand and often doing so in such lurid terms that what she did get right was simply blotted out. Tanta would occasional write an entire article correcting a Morgenson article while simultaneously dismantling it.

    In fond memory of Tanta, a classic vivisection of a 2007 Morgenson column: <a href=http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/11/gm-watch-again-foreclosures-and-fees.html GM Watch, Again: Foreclosures and Fees.

    NB: Anyone who wants to understand real estate finance in detail owes it to themselves to peruse Tanta’s series, The Compleat UberNerd

    or, for a reality-based and often amusing historical journey of the mortgage/finance crisis from 2006 through 2008 as viewed by an expert, a complete Compendium of Tanta’s Posts. R.I.P.

  23. econimonium says:

    Well, Dedude, I suppose it does help to be a sociopath or at least justify it by saying “Hey, everyone else is doing it”. I don’t think it’s actually evil, honestly, as much as it is that we’ve all participated in what we’ve now got for the business world, but we refuse to admit it. The Chuck Prince quote is an example of both. Obviously it doesn’t take a degree to figure out the guy is a complete Sociopath, but his quote is a complete admission of what we’ve built: capitalism isn’t that American-esque “you work hard, and you’ll get somewhere” ideal. It’s the “where is the greatest amount of money for the taking” sort of place. “When the music stops” admits he knows the “music” is a scam. How many people at the time paused to realize what that man actually just said? And anyone who was buying/selling bank or any stocks having to do with this play at the time has blood on their hands as well. You’re the people that were financing the railroad that made it possible for these idiots to load everyone into box cars. Not to kill them this time, but to fleece them. And then, as if this wasn’t bad enough, made it so bad that the taxpayers had to pick up the bill to unload them from the cars once they had been fleeced!

    Look at you all billing and cooing about Apple while they rape everyone in China for about 25 bucks an iPhone/iPad. Behavior they wouldn’t get away with here and, translation on “flexible” in what Jobs said, is “Couldn’t do it here because the US Government’s laws wouldn’t let us hire kids, or let people work until they kill themselves”. That’s flexibility! All to make your iPhone either 25 bucks cheaper or make a lot of money for stockholders. So move along folks, nothing to really see here in these factories.

    Now look at Amazon. As a company who actually admits that it’s going to invest and take the hit. So what happens? The stock gets savaged anyhow, analysts complain, and you’re made to be a schmuck. What? If I were Bezos, I’d deliver another couple of quarters of “disappointing” numbers, let everyone talk, then pull some revenue and profit numbers out of my desk drawer (because, you know, we can all do that), and webcast myself assraping a bunch of analysts live on my desk while yelling “Take that Facebook! Do something valuable!”

  24. slowkarma says:

    I thought it was a pretty good article, and Barry’s characterization of it was somewhat unfair. It’s not that some obscure guy called up and said, “You’re screwing the pooch,” it’s that he called up, and the complaint was referred to a Washington law firm to investigate, and that produced an in-depth report that Fannie Mae’s own OCJ said revealed abuses that Fannie Mae needed to address right away. So it wasn’t just the obscure guy — it was Fannie Mae’s own “Justice” office’s recommendation that was ignored.

    I don’t think Fannie and Freddie were the cause of ALL the trouble — but I think they were right up to their asses in it, and if they’d done things differently, and ethically, the overall outcome might have been different.

  25. Sunny129 says:

    From NY article:

    “Any attorney general, lawyer, bank director, judge, regulator or member of Congress who does not open their eyes to the abuse, ask pertinent questions and allow proper investigation and discovery,” he said, “is only assisting in the concealment of what may be the fraud of our lifetime.”

    When your SALARY , Bonuses and benefits depends upon NOT understanding the problem at hand or even after being pointed out specifically by those( by affected or not getting benefited with the current conditions) there is absolutely NO incentive to correct the ‘situations” be they may be – Congress, Regulators, Banksters or their cronies! Add to this the multi million $ earning MSM-MEDIA WHORES assisting these crooks!

    The system is CORRUPT to the CORE!

  26. some things should be (re-)read..

    econimonium Says:
    February 5th, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    Well, Dedude, I suppose it does help to be a sociopath or at least justify it by saying “Hey, everyone else is doing it”. I don’t think it’s actually evil, honestly, as much as it is that we’ve all participated in what we’ve now got for the business world, but we refuse to admit it. The Chuck Prince quote is an example of both. Obviously it doesn’t take a degree to figure out the guy is a complete Sociopath, but his quote is a complete admission of what we’ve built: capitalism isn’t that American-esque “you work hard, and you’ll get somewhere” ideal. It’s the “where is the greatest amount of money for the taking” sort of place. “When the music stops” admits he knows the “music” is a scam. How many people at the time paused to realize what that man actually just said? And anyone who was buying/selling bank or any stocks having to do with this play at the time has blood on their hands as well. You’re the people that were financing the railroad that made it possible for these idiots to load everyone into box cars. Not to kill them this time, but to fleece them. And then, as if this wasn’t bad enough, made it so bad that the taxpayers had to pick up the bill to unload them from the cars once they had been fleeced!

    Look at you all billing and cooing about Apple while they rape everyone in China for about 25 bucks an iPhone/iPad. Behavior they wouldn’t get away with here and, translation on “flexible” in what Jobs said, is “Couldn’t do it here because the US Government’s laws wouldn’t let us hire kids, or let people work until they kill themselves”. That’s flexibility! All to make your iPhone either 25 bucks cheaper or make a lot of money for stockholders. So move along folks, nothing to really see here in these factories.

    Now look at Amazon. As a company who actually admits that it’s going to invest and take the hit. So what happens? The stock gets savaged anyhow, analysts complain, and you’re made to be a schmuck. What? If I were Bezos, I’d deliver another couple of quarters of “disappointing” numbers, let everyone talk, then pull some revenue and profit numbers out of my desk drawer (because, you know, we can all do that), and webcast myself assraping a bunch of analysts live on my desk while yelling “Take that Facebook! Do something valuable!”
    ~~

    and, in keeping with the ‘Spirit’ of Today’s “National Holiday/Spiritual ‘Revival’”

    that, the above, by econimonium, has to be worth 6 Points, at the minimum..~

  27. Joe Friday says:

    slowkarma,

    I don’t think Fannie and Freddie were the cause of ALL the trouble — but I think they were right up to their asses in it, and if they’d done things differently, and ethically, the overall outcome might have been different.

    You “think” wrong.

    History, reality, and the data, all indicate otherwise.

  28. bear_in_mind says:

    Sorry Barry, but the captains of industry should have the insight and imagination to not only consider alternative models, but the implications contained therein. This points to a MASSIVE FAIL of leadership and fiduciary responsibility. The only question is why these ‘ner-do-wells haven’t been marched into criminal and civil courts en masse.

  29. Ridge Runner says:

    The regulatory response to our repeated warnings
    http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/02/02/housing-red-flags-ignored/
    about the consequences of reckless underwriting practices was, after some soothing noise thanking us for the input (or dead silence) : “File and Forget”. Meanwhile, the GSE’s fashioned the burglary tools for the heist, and studiously looked the other way when the mortgage banks they bankrolled, and the investment banks who cloned their practices and then doubled down with even more reckless feeding of demand for fraudulent product, which brokers duly delivered. We didn’t need new regulations, we needed regulators who would deploy their existing powers to blow the whistle and book the perps.

  30. EMichael says:

    I would strongly suggest that RidgeRunner go through Tanta’s mortgage primer as RW so kindly provided.

    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/04/mbs-for-ubernerds-ii-remics-dogs-tails.html

    Unfortunatley, I hold very few hopes that understanding the crisis and the real culprits does not amount to a defense of all of the GSEs actions.

  31. [...] were the warnings an Exercise in Futility? Ritholtz does bring up some very good points but did the reports go unheeded or fall to the [...]

  32. [...] Total surprise myth vs. calculated robbery Posted on February 6, 2012 by thecrosspollinator http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/gretchen-morgensons-exercise-in-futility/ [...]

  33. AtlasRocked says:

    The same human factors, emotions and errors in judgment are driving the system now just like they always have.

    Maybe something changed in the SYSTEM in the last couple of generations?

    Take a look at the regulating agency’s budget, usually the motivation in business and government behavior is $.

    Take a look at the US government budget since 1960.

    Before 1960, the government spent around 5% on social programs and 45% on defense. (Total spending – yes I’m counting the fraudulent “off budget” spending.)

    Now look at social spending – it’s gone from 5% of the federal budget to 60%. Defense from 45% down to 20%. A budget tells you what an organization prioritizes, and that’s a GIGANTIC change in focus and culture: from defense and business regulation in 1960, to social spending and defense in 2012.

    What happens when a regulatory agency is also the money distributor? Could this has diverted the interests of the government to expanding more tax revenue to support more redistribution to their constituents, instead of creating healthy regulation to the benefit of all?

    Instead of rejecting the line of questioning along political grounds, why not discuss the possibilities?

    For instance, what if NASCAR, instead of regulating the race cars to maximize competition and revenue, focused 60% of their budget toward giving money to the fan base that attended races? How would that change the regulation of the cars?

    Should Mr. Regulator and Mr. Redistributor be sleeping together?

  34. Joe Friday says:

    AtlasRocked,

    Now look at social spending – it’s gone from 5% of the federal budget to 60%. Defense from 45% down to 20%.

    You’re not just wrong, you’re nuts.

    The Military Industrial Complex and merely the interest on the Reagan/Poppy Bush/Chimpy Bush federal debt comprises almost two-thirds of the federal budget.

    Get a clue.

  35. Been Around 1963 says:

    The article’s headline is a bit of a bait and switch.

    The article itself had to do with a whistleblower who uncovered widespread foreclosure fraud. This is a different, albeit, related issue widespread origination fraud that fueled the real estate bubble.

  36. [...] The true failure of big finance in the housing crisis.  (Big Picture) [...]