Hat tip and kudos to Vermont Lyme Network led by Dayle Ann and Nancy.

I've been studying up on Lyme disease over the last year after meeting two women — both in their early 30's — who suffer from chronic Lyme.  In learning more about it, I became convinced that my father, who suffers every day from a variety of seemingly unrelated symptoms, became a chronic victim after he visted his doctor with a rash from a bug bite — and was never tested!

Lyme disease is here in Vermont, and there are still a lot of doctors who are not proactive in recognizing it.  Last year, the State Epidemiologist sent out questionnaire to doctors in order to discover their knowledge base.  Of course, 85% responded in a way to suggest that they are up to speed on the subject, but frankly, I could have passed the test without ever attending medical school since the questionnaire was titled, Lyme Physician Survey Report for Providers.  Talk about giving away the diagnosis before listing the symptoms.

So, my father suffers needlessly, unlike the President who was diagnosed and treated immediately, which is really the only time to prevent chronic lyme from setting in.

Below the fold, what you need to know, and a press release on last week's settlement in the first-ever anti-trust investigation against a medical society's guidelines development process involving suppressed scientific evidence and corruption by a commercially driven medical panel.

FACTS ABOUT LYME DISEASE

1.  Lyme disease is the most widespread and fastest growing vector borne disease in America.

2.  Lyme desease is present throughout Vermont. “Case definition” statistics do not represent the true occurrence. CDC estimates that at a minimum, nationally the actual number of new cases annually is at least 10 times those that meet the requirements for reporting. Underreporting is common for other reasons as well, misdiagnosis being one of them.

3.  There are two recognized sets of diagnostic and treatment guidelines, but only one is being made available to physicians in Vermont. Physicians need to know about both sets of guidelines, in order to make informed decisions in treating their patients.

4.  Treated early and adequately, Lyme disease can be cured. But once it disseminates from the site of infection, it can be devastating in consequences, and difficult to treat. Even early treatment sometimes fails.

5.  People with inadequately treated chronic or relapsing Lyme disease frequently experience a quality of life equal to or worse than that of people with other chronic illnesses such as ALS or MS.

6.  The loss of jobs, homes, relationships, social support, and dependence on public resources result not only in severe economic losses to the families involved, but to society as a whole.

7.  Additional research on the dynamics of Lyme and other tick-borne diseases, and on various treatment modalities, is critical to increase our understanding of how to treat these diseases more effectively.

8.  There are far more cases of Lyme disease, with more far-reaching consequences, than there are ofWest Nile. Yet the funding for West Nile far exceeds that for Lyme and associated diseases at both state and federal levels.

There is a bill in Congress, HR 741, that would address some of these
issues, but recognition is also needed at the state level.

For more information contact:
Vermont Lyme Network
vermontlyme@vermontlyme.org
www.vermontlyme.org     

Additionall, for those who suffer chronic lyme who have also had their diagnosis and alternative treatment summarily dismissed, there was a ground breaking settlement just last week.

Watch out for ticks, and if you get a bullet shaped rash, get to your doctor immediately and demand a test for Lyme.  The particular type of rash is in fact a diagnosis all by itself.

Here's the press release on last week's settlement:

Hartford, CT – Patients' rights groups today hailed Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal's announcement of a settlement in a landmark antitrust investigation into the Lyme treatment guidelines ofthe Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

“My office uncovered undisclosed financial interests held by severalof the most powerful IDSA panelists,” said Blumenthal. “The IDSA's guideline panel improperly ignored, or minimized, consideration of
alternative medical opinion and evidence regarding chronic Lyme disease, potentially raising serious questions about whether therecommendations reflected all relevant science.”

The groundbreaking settlement announced today forces a complete review of the IDSA guidelines by a new panel free from conflicts of interest,specifically excluding previous panel members. This panel will
consider a range of scientific evidence in a public forum broadcast live over the internet and will be overseen by a specialist in financial conflicts of interest in medicine.

“This settlement makes it clear that the IDSA guideline development process was corrupted by a commercially driven panel that excluded evidence supporting longer term treatment of Lyme disease,” said attorney Lorraine Johnson, Executive Director of the California Lyme Disease Association (CALDA). “This settlement allows suppressed scientific viewpoints and evidence to be heard, and it is promising news for patients.”

This is the first-ever antitrust investigation against a medicalsociety's guidelines development process.

“We congratulate Attorney General Blumenthal for exposing the IDSA's conflicts of interest and helping reduce the suffering of Lyme patients everywhere,” said Pat Smith, president of the national Lyme
Disease Association (LDA). “The IDSA guidelines are dangerous for patients who suffer longer-term Lyme symptoms that do not fall within the IDSA's narrow disease definition.”

The IDSA guidelines are treated as mandatory within the medical community. More than 50 physicians who use longer-term treatment approaches have been investigated or sanctioned by state medical
boards. The guidelines can also result in financial problems for patients, since insurance companies refuse to reimburse for longer-term treatment and pharmacies may refuse to fill prescriptions.

The majority of individuals involved in the IDSA guidelines development process held direct or indirect commercial interests related to Lyme vaccines, patents, and/or test kits, and did not take
the opinions or experiences of the competing Lyme groups into account. While the announcement of a settlement comes as a huge relief to suffering Lyme patients, the case has much broader implications for a health care system that often contends with conflicts of interest in guideline processes – guidelines which are often used by insurance companies to limit diagnosis and treatment options.

“Today's settlement marks an important victory for all patients who suffer Lyme disease, but it is also a victory for anyone concerned about health care,” said Johnson. “Commercially driven guidelines that
limit patient treatment options are a major issue today in healthcare, and this decision marks an important step towards addressing it.”

The national Lyme Disease Association, (LDA), CALDA, and Time for Lyme are non-profit organizations that were founded by individuals who had personal experience with Lyme disease, in order to address the lack of education and support services available for this newly emerging infection.

This morning I rec'd an email from SPS who asked me to share.  Thank you, Steve, for helping get some real-life pictures to us, and for pointing readers to a place where they can offer help. 

These photos were taken by employees of an AmericanNGO, Pact, – one of the few with offices in Myanmar. The scale of the catastrophe and suffering are simplyoverwhelming.

 Pact has set up a link on its web page (http://www.pactworld.org/cs/help_myanmar) to provide more information on the relief effort, but suffice itto say that right now everyone is scrambling.

best,
Steve

Additional photos are posted on WaPo; but the main point is to get  the word out that Mynmar will likely loose over 100,000 people in the storm's aftermath, and that donations can be given through Friends of PACT/Myanmar.

For more information, go to:   http://www.pactworld.org/cs/help_myanmar

Before we get to the exciting news below the fold, here's a quick follow up on an unaswered question by SPS yesterday. 

In the comment section in my prior L3C diary, Steve asked a great question about the investment structure.  After some research, here is a powerpoint slide showing a good example.  The full powerpoint is available at AmericansForCommunityDevelopment.com

Below the fold:  Announcing First Two L3Cs incorporated in Vermont and the United States!

First in line with L3C corporate filing forms is Robert Lang, L3C Advisors, L3C.  No surprise there.  He's the guy backed by the Manweiller Foundation who brought L3C bills to Vermont and North Carolina legislatures.  After all of his hard work, he's the leading L3C consultant in the country.

Second At Bat is none other than yours truly, Nate Freeman, Non-Profit Investors, L3C.

And the URL race is on!  Janice Lang, presumably Robert Lang's wife, now owns L3Cadvisors.com. 

For my part, I picked up the following:

NonProfitInvestors.com and .org

VermontL3C.com and .org

…as well of variations of the same.

Ok, I guess I'm bragging — my apology.  What I have been sending out to GMD readers in the last two days is a message of hope and opportunity in the creation of the L3C model.  Hope, because these are mission-driven businesses that can fulfill needs in between the non-profit and for-profit sectors.  Opportunity because we are the very beginning of a new era in a national economy which can now benefit from the financial resources and good will of investors, foundations, and corporations.

My hope is that here in Vermont, professional, legal, and financial advisors will quickly grow and brand our state as the home base for L3C consulting.  It's a clean, knowledge-driven business with minimal impact.

Since we are at the very beginning of the L3C movement, the first area of consulting will be in educating prospective business owners and investors in the capabilities and flexibilities of Low-Income Limited Liability Corporations.

Game on!

Nate

UPDATE:  Bill to be Signed Tomorrow, April 30th at the State House, 10:30am. 

Hat tip to BP who started the conversation on Low-Income Limited Liability Companies in his diary, “In the Business Section.” 

Once the governor signs the bill, Vermont will be the first state to allow this unique business entity, aptly referred to as “The For Profit With a Non-Profit Soul.”  Frankly, I think this is a great opportunity for Vermont and reassures me that maybe we haven't lost our sense of national leadership on progressive issues.  Vermont now has an expansive opportunity to lead the nation in the creation of L3Cs which can operate here or anywhere in the world.

There's a great PDF presentation on the subject, from which I draw some thoughts below the fold.  Also, you can get information about the driving force behind L3Cs at www.americansforcommunitydevelopment.org

What is an L3C?  Why is it useful? Answers and examples of a couple creative applications below the fold.

Business as usual just got a lot more interesting….

The L3C is legal solution that allows a philanthropic orgranization to invest, create, or purchase for-profit companies in an effort to fulfill its mission.  Apparently, this is similar to the original purpose of the Program Related Investments (PRI).  The reasons PRIs aren't commonly used are two-fold. 

1. First, non-profit leaders are cautious about tax law, and rightfully ask, “Would the proposed PRI concept fit the IRS definition?”  That question, it turns out, requires an IRS Private Letter Ruling, a process that costs tens of thousands of dollars and about a year and a half processing time.  So a PRI presents an immediate financial and bureacratic hurdle.  This can make a PRI more bother than it might be worth, especially since the investment presents a risk unlike other prudent investments the non-profit might ordinarily make.
2. Second, a PRI's primary objective is shareholder interest, otherwise known as Return On Investment.  The bottom line is that the non-profit's mission is really nothing more than a nice marketing message, making a PRI more like a standard Socially Responsible for-profit company.  Since the PRI is required to put shareholder interest ahead of the non-profit's mission, the investment can inadvertantly run counter to the foundation's mission and goals.

So why is an L3C important and how does it work? 

It doesn't take an expert on non-profit organizations and private foundations to discover an entrerprenurial solution to a foundation's missions and goals.  In fact, if foundations and non-profits begin to put for-profit entrepreneurs to work, they can expect to see some really creative solutions brought to the table.  The timing for the birth of L3Cs is very intriguing, too.  As we being to experience significant changes in our food, fuel, and consumer economy, L3Cs can offer the new , for-profit solutions without being tied to short-term, quarterly gains expectations.  Also, as we begin to enter a recession, L3Cs can help sustain economic activity as it allows venture capital from a completely unlikely source:  private foundations.

So what kind of business would a private foundation purchase, invest in, or form from the ground up?  The answer would depend on the foundation's mission and goals.  There are as many opportunities as there are private foundations and non-profit orgs.

Let's offer a hypothetical.

Farm Foundation, which has worked in the area of economic and policy issues affecting agriculture for 75 years, wants to fulfill one of their High Priority Topics, in the area of Environment and Natural Resources.  At the root of this non-profit initiative is a clear desire to help reduce the environmental impact from farms.  The traditional non-profit method is to facilitate the work already being done by others.  But the root of the problem can also be approached with a for-profit business solution.  

For example, dairy farms impact waterways with excess phosphorous runoff.  It happens that there is a for-profit feed solution which reduces phosphorous, improves milk output, and improves the health of the farm's herd.  But the average farmer won't see an immediate financial benefit significant enough to justify the investment.  Farm Foundation might consider creating an L3C named Phosphorous Solutions to purchase the technology and get the product out to market on at a lower profit margin, making the product more accessible.  At the same time Farm Foundation fulfills it's High Priority initiative via Phosphorous Solutions it generates revenue for continued reinvestment instead of just giving the money away.  It also fills in an economic gap which would have been left void by virtue of market failure.  Farmers wouldn't have bought the product because it was too expensive and the traditional for-profit couldn't offer an affordable discount because it would not make a reasonable profit for its shareholders.

The real opportunity for L3Cs is in these areas where there is an opportunity for gain that has not been captured for one reason or another.  In that sense, maybe we can call the L3C the solution for market failure.  Using the vehicle of the L3C, foundations can:

1. Promote creative efforts to offset negative externalities in the marketplace, such as pollution.  In that regard, L3Cs could become the primary tool in the environmental economy.  L3Cs can also:
2. Support positive externalities, such as health and wellness clinics.  Imagine a low-income healthcare model supported with a captive insurance company.  The combination of controlling health care costs on both the risk management side (the captive insurance company) as well as the provider side (low-income health care clinic) would be a truly American solution to the problem of health and wellness.   

The possibilities are endless.  Why not create an alternative energy utility L3C?  How about solving the problem of Internet and cell phone connections in rural areas?  Transportation?  Etc. Etc.  At at time when rational people have reason to be concerned about our economy, national debt, global competition, climate change, fuel costs, food and hunger, the L3C model offers new hope in it's unique position in providing potential safety nets where ever there is market failure in alignment with non-profit missions and goals.

To understand a little more about where this proposal is coming from, here's an example from the PDF linked above.

Take a hypothetical foundation with a $100 million endowment. If it conducts business as usual,
it distributes $5 million per year in the form of grants. At the end of ten years, assuming the
foundation’s endowment does not grow, it will have spent $50 million on social causes in the form of
grants.

Contrast that with a $100 million foundation that spends 100% of its grant money in the form of
PRIs. Let’s say it earns an annual return of as little as 2% on PRIs, which it substitutes for grants.
Again, for the sake of simplicity, assume that the endowment does not grow. In the first year, it
spends $5 million; the second year, $5,100,000—and so forth. At the end of ten years, that means the
foundation will have spent $54,748,605 on social causes—an increase of about 9.5 %. On top of that,
the money will still be there—ready to be spent on yet more social issues.

But, when it comes to extending the impact of foundation dollars that is not the end. The final
key is a concept known as layering. In fact, various foundations in partnership with New York City
used such an approach to build 40,000 new affordable housing units. The foundations provided $14
million ($1 million to $5 million each) in PRIs, and the city appropriated $8 million. As a result, the
project includes $200 million in bank debt which otherwise would not have been available. That’s a
leverage ratio of 9:1.

But that’s just the beginning. After all, is there any reason that such deals, properly structured,
can’t also include partners like pension funds and other fiduciaries? Or smaller foundations, for that
matter—especially if we institutionalize the more user-friendly L3C? If leverage of the foundation
dollar in terms of social impact is what we want, in fact, the ideal PRI or L3C could even be equity
rather than debt.

Take our project in North Carolina, where 60,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last
five years due to competition from China in the form of low labor costs, looser environmental and
labor laws, subsidized buildings and equipment etc. For many of these workers, these jobs are 3rd or
4th generation. It’s not just jobs that are disappearing, but an entire culture. And as this culture
disappears, entire communities are being destroyed.

As a small foundation, we want to level the playing field so these manufacturers can survive.
After the North Carolina legislature adopts the L3C, our first order of business is to form an L3C with
which to buy a factory where we will house a furniture manufacturing plant and furnish it with the
greenest and most efficient cutting edge equipment possible. As a foundation making a “social
investment” in a “low profit” company that replaces a grant, our goal is not to maximize profit.
Therefore we can make long-term investments like green equipment.

The cheapest way to own the building, of course, is to buy it outright. Without a mortgage to
pay, the L3C can charge a furniture manufacturing company lower rent and equipment lease rate.
This, in turn, reduces costs for the manufacturer, which puts it in a stronger position to compete
—and thrive. The social benefit is saving jobs and a culture and promoting community economic
development.

We estimate that it will be possible to lease the building and its equipment to the manufacturer
at a low rate: about 2%, plus a 1% management fee. But there’s no reason the return from the lease
can’t be split among different tranches of investors: 1%, or less, say, for foundations who treat this
PRI in an L3C as a grant by putting up, say, 20% of the total $10 million cost. And 5% for fiduciaries
who must match market returns when making such investments. (The endowment side of a
particular foundation could co-invest as a fiduciary.)

Is it really appropriate to use foundation dollars to make such high risk investments? The
answer is: Does it really matter if the foundation loses money on an L3C or PRI? Remember, these
investments are intended as substitutes for grants, which foundations are required by law to
distribute anyway. Think about it this way. When a foundation makes a grant, it loses the money
forever.

Now that I've done my homework on the subject, I'd like to thank Bob Lang and the Manweiller Foundation for this kind of creative thinking.  The L3C is an ingenious idea that comes at an appropriate time.

Nate Freeman

Northfield

NateFreeman@gmail.com 

(I have not been as consistently thrilled with the TA’s editorial’s of late as Nate is, but there’s no question this one merits special recognition. – promoted by odum)

Kudos to Sue Allen in today's Times Argus in her editorial, Loose Lips. So far, I haven't seen any MSM accountability call for Clinton's Cold War posturing and language, but at least our leading editorialist in Central Vermont is calling out Clinton on unacceptable, escalatory messages to our allies and friends overseas.  Here's Allen's lead in: 

Our leaders must be accountable for their words, and the words “totally obliterate” mean nothing less than nuclear annihilation. If John McCain had unleashed a threat of nuclear annihilation against Iran, the cry would go up that he was a crazy man

Not to fawn over today's piece to the point of a lack of a critical read, Allen's used of the now tired phrase, “Where's the outrage…?” followed by, “…is she getting a pass?” might not have been necessary.  But heck, this observation should be directed to the entire spectrum of national MSM.  

Besides today's editorial, we should note the high quality of Sue Allen's daily writing in the Argus.  Since an editor most often hears only about what readers don't like about their daily paper, I decided to send her a note last week to let her know what a good job she's been doing with the editorials.  

I've put Allen's column on my daily read list.  My note to her last week is below the fold.  But if you're pressed for time, just check out today's piece a la Allen.

Since you have been Editor of the Times Argus I am confident you have received commendations from readers on the rising quality of the daily news as well as your own editorials.  I would like to offer my thanks and appreciation for your leadership in journalism as well as your brilliance in writing. 

Today's  editorial, “Start Talking”  reminded me of a piece you wrote  several years ago titled, “Bankrupt” in your call for the level of integrity Americans deserve from Washington and the national media.

But I am not writing today to simply offer kudos on two particular editorials written by your hand.   My letter today comes from a cumulative impression about the rising level of quality of the Times Argus and how you have created this trend through your leadership, writing, and very smart political observations.

Thank you for work well done.  No breakfast is complete without you.

In yesterday's Times Argus there is an intriguing drama between the Secretary of Administration and State Treasurer developing in the economic stimulus proposal.  Interestingly, it's on a topic of directed investments of state pension funds, which has been discussed here on GMD in heated debates.

I'm all for directed investments so long as they meet fiduciary requirements.  And this is where the battle line is drawn.

I think we're all familiar with Jeb Spaulding's headshot.  Here's one of Mike Smith:

Secretary of Administration and former Deputy Treasurer, Mike Smith.  He was appointed Deputy State Treasurer for the State of Vermont under Treasurer James H. Douglas, serving from 1995-99.

My letter to the Times Argus below the fold.  Your thoughts, business/finance experts Doug Hoffer, Curtis Cairn, SPS, et al?

Editor:

I appreciate Peter Hirschfeld's report, “Stimulus Investment Plan Decried” in Wednesday's Times Argus, as well as State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding's attention to Federal law requiring prudent investment of state pension funds.

The stimulus proposal to require a $17 million investment in VHFA bonds from the pension fund would have been in violation of fiduciary law under ERISA.  The discussion about rate of returns between Treasurer Spaulding and Secretary of Administration, Mike Smith, seems to miss a more relevant point when it comes to a question of prudent investing.  That is, for the administration to require a specific investment at a specific moment in time for any reason other than for the benefit of pension fund investors is a breach of fiduciary responsibility and against Federal law as written in ERISA.

What is most surprising about this discussion is the argument made by Secretary Smith, who has served as Deputy Treasurer in the past.  His comparison of the requirement to buy VHFA bonds during a mortgage crisis to a broad investment policy excluding general types of securities, such as tobacco related companies, demonstrates Smith's fundamental misunderstanding of fiduciary law.  Additionally, his statement, “The governor isn't going to allow people to not have access to these programs,” as a rationale for purchasing VHFA bonds suggests that Smith has forgotten that the state pension fund, just like private pension funds,  must be managed for its beneficiaries and not for the benefit of either a sitting governor nor VHFA home buyers.  In the same way that a CEO cannot force corporate pension administrators to buy a particular investment for the benefit of the company or its customers, the Governor cannot require the State Treasurer to buy VHFA bonds because it may help the state's economy and first time home buyers.

Conversely, the Treasurer may draft broad policies allocating a percentage of investments in the state of Vermont.  It happens that Treasurer Spaulding is already at work in this area.  This kind of investment practice is acceptable because it allows the pension to purchase types of securities based on geography, as versus requiring an investment in a specific bond offering.  It is one thing to allocate a percentage of the pension fund in a broad range of Vermont investments; it's entirely different to require the pension to invest in VHFA.

It is an unfortunate precedent when leading state officials attempt to overstep the Treasurer's fiduciary responsibilities as appears to be the case in Governor's stimulus plan.  It is even more disconcerting when it appears that the fundamental concepts of ERISA are not understood by someone who has served as Deputy Treasurer not so long ago.

Just an FYI to Pollina supporters that there is a fundraising event in Waterbury coming up.

Where:  Alchemist

When:  Sunday, April 26th

Time:  9:30am 

Chef ('cause food makes the event):  Jeff Lang 

In case you haven't checked out Maureen Dowd this morning — who's taken her turn beating on and defending both Clinton and Obama — it's Clinton's turn to see the sexism charge being called out against her.

He’s never going to shake her off.

Not all by himself.

The very fact that he can’t shake her off has become her best argument against him. “Why can’t he close the deal?” Hillary taunted at a polling place on Tuesday.

She’s been running ads about it, suggesting he doesn’t have “what it takes” to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he’s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband’s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama?

Her message?  Obama isn't “man enough” to beat her.  More on-the-money quotes below the fold.  Here's the teaser:

“The Democrats are growing ever more desperate about the Attack of the 50 Foot Woman.”

All quotes are from Maureen Dowd in today's NYTimes (the green quotation background is more difficult to read): 

*********** 

“They also cringe as Bill continues his honey-crusted-nut-bar meltdown. With his usual exquisite timing, just as Pennsylvanians were about to vote, Hillary’s husband became the first person ever to play the Caucasian Card. First, he blurted out to a radio interviewer that the Obama camp had played the race card against him after he compared Obama’s strength in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s. And then, with a Brobdingnagian finger-wagging on the screen, he denied it to an NBC News reporter.

“You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today,” he said, accusing the reporter of looking for “another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us.”

***********

…Not to be one-sided in her critique, Dowd says of Obama:

“As the husband of Michelle, does he know better than to defy the will of a strong woman? Or is he simply scared of Hillary because she’s scary?”

***********

…And finally, a really great bit of wisdom a la Dr. Suess:

“Before they devour themselves once more, perhaps the Democrats will take a cue from Dr. Seuss’s “Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!” (The writer once mischievously redid it for his friend Art Buchwald as “Richard M. Nixon Will You Please Go Now!”) They could sing:

“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. … I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. … You can go in an old blue shoe.

Just go, go, GO!”

**********

Thanks, Maureen.  Well said.

( – promoted by odum)

Wow, just when I thought the mortgage crisis was finally being dealt with, here comes yet another email offer! 

Hi Nate.  I recently received the information that you submitted about purchasing a home.  I called the number that you provided but was not able to reach you.  Please call or email me at your earliest convenience.  Thank you.

Fred
—
Peak Mortgage
Fred Phillips
Senior Loan Officer
fred.themortgageguy@cox.net
480-251-9771

Fred, Fred, Fred….  When did we last talk?  Never.  When did I submit information about purchasing a home?  Not in quite a while, and not with anyone other than my local Vermont bank.  So, Fred, who are you?  Who is Peak Mortgage?  Since it seems that our national banking oversight is absent, let me forward your personal note to Vermont's regulatory agency, BISCHA.   

And guess what they tell me about you?

Dear Mr. Freeman:

Thank you for your email.  Peak Mortgage is not licensed by this Department and may be in violation of Vermont banking statute.  The Department will followup accordingly.

Good job, BISCHA!  I hope you let Fred know that Vermonters don't need to put their good mortgage dollars into a bad mortgage industry.

Has Fred contacted you?  Are you being solicited by mortgage sales pros who may or may not be licensed in Vermont?  If so, send your questionable solicitations along to bankdiv@bishca.state.vt.us

In all of the noise about who's at fault at creating the mortgage crisis, one factor rarely makes it to print:  the hyper-marketing and hard-selling of questionable financial products to consumers who can't possibly know the difference between a tranche and CMO (which is how their mortgage gets sliced, diced, and resold around the world).

The mortgage originators are cold-calling, emailing, and pushing consumer debt like crack-cocaine, and now they're looking for new junkies.  Thanks, Fred;  I'll pass.