Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

America's Financial Mess

Rate this topic


Wotan

Recommended Posts

Well, it's an accounting thing. A bank's assets (I suppose that's everything of value that they own) has to be paid for in some way, and that is done through both equity and liabilities (loans of various kinds). It is very difficult to finance a business solely through direct ownership, because borrowing money allows you to grow much more quickly. Usually about 70-80% of a business' assets are backed by liabilities, but the thing is, they make more money doing it that way than they have to pay in interest, so it's a way of creating more value than otherwise would be possible if they only had direct ownership through equity financing.

It's kinda like borrowing a hundred dollars so you can use them and make 120 dollars. If that's all you have, your assets (100 dollars in cash) would be backed solely by debt, but if you make money on your secondary investment you can eventually pay back the money with interest (say 105 dollars total) and you make 15 dollars that you couldnt have made without borrowing the money.

Balancing their books just means that their assets always have to be backed by a equivalent amount of debt + equity combined. Otherwise there'd be more assets than were paid for, which is impossible. The value has to come from somewhere, and the accounting reflects that. Added value through profits is part of equity, so it stays balanced when you make money.

I guess to answer the second part of your question: The banks bought mortgages as assets, using a combination of equity and liabilities to finance it (mostly borrowed money, see above). When the mortgages that seemed to give a healthy return on their investment started losing value, the equity share of their financing was correspondingly reduced because of the loss they made, and eventually all that is left is debt, and the mortgages become pure liabilities that drag down overall profits. If a significant amount of their assets were based on this, they'd have a really big problem.

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 540
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here is an article by Stanley Kurtz that ties Obama, ACORN, Ayers, the CRA and the current economic crisis together:

http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3566/pub_detail.asp

At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago's Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN's way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we've recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something else I don't understand about this whole mess: Why is it necessary for banks to borrow from other banks in order to balance their books? I guess a deeper question than that is, why do the books have to be balanced?

I think you're confusing "balancing the books" with "balance sheet". Banks borrow and lend to each other for all sorts of reasons. It is not specifically to balance the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an article by Stanley Kurtz that ties Obama, ACORN, Ayers, the CRA and the current economic crisis together:

http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3566/pub_detail.asp

That was an interesting article, and it shows why the government must be kept out of the economy. Of course, organizations such as ACORN would have no power without the Community Reinvestment Act, and if Congress is going to point a gun at businessmen, then one has to expect someone to bring home the loot. Having been the victim of intimidation tactics similar to those of ACORN --i.e. harassments and stalking -- I think those who did that ought to have been thrown in jail. But it is certainly a tactic of the political Left to try to shut things down with protests and intimidation tactics, which they claim they have a right to do, but actually don't. For example, look at the protests going on regarding Caylee's mom where they have been given access due to the roads being "public". If the roads and access ways were completely private, then such protests would not be possible, as this would be trespassing.

While ACORN is evil in its tactics, it was irrational philosophy and irrational laws that made them possible. Altruism turns a blind eye to the tactics because poor and minorities got their homes (that they couldn't pay for), so it all continued until the current crises. It is altruism and statism they got us here in the first place, otherwise banks and other businessmen would have acted more rationally or would have gone out of business.

But it still amazes me that so many businessmen did not see this as a house of cards, and that as soon as the market changed for the worse, they would all be driven broke and bankrupt. I actually don't think it was the case that no one saw it coming, given articles that clearly showed it was going to happen ten years ago, but rather it was pragmatism that led them to think short-range and a lack of capitalist principles that led them to accept the looming disaster without raising a voice in protest.

Where were the Hank Reardens and the Francisco D'Anconias? or don't they exist just yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're confusing "balancing the books" with "balance sheet". Banks borrow and lend to each other for all sorts of reasons. It is not specifically to balance the books.

That's possible. I guess banks can use other banks the way regular businessmen use credit cards to make purchases and to extend their abilities to stay in business. I mean, I understand the virtues of using credit; and I also understand that doing this is based on future earnings. That is, so long as one continues to have a job or continues to have earning power, paying the credit card is possible.

I guess what gets me is that so many businessmen seemed to rely on the projection that housing would continue to increase in value over time, and based many of their transactions on that proposition, never thinking that it might have a down turn sometime in the future.

In the picture framing business, we have limited edition prints, which tend to go up in value over time. But basing your business model on that proposition, instead of calculating what you can make at the issue price, can lead to disaster if the future value does not go up. A more prudent business model is to run your business such that one can make a profit at the issue price, and the extra income from those values going up is gravy.

I see this as similar to those who make good money, but don't have any savings, as if the highly profitable job will always be there or that a personal disaster will not occur. Or those who borrowed money in order to be in the stock market, projecting that they could easily make more than the percentage of the loan.

Reality has a way of getting you to check those premises rather quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what gets me is that so many businessmen seemed to rely on the projection that housing would continue to increase in value over time, and based many of their transactions on that proposition, never thinking that it might have a down turn sometime in the future.

Thomas, I think that you have to recognize that government intervention in the economy creates all sorts of false signals to rational businessmen that then cause them to miscalculate. For example, when interest rates are held too low by the Fed, that creates false perceptions about the housing market and the value of individual homes. When GSEs like Fannie and Freddie create markets for low quality Collateralized Mortgage Obligations that carry an implied government guarantee, that puts out false information to the markets. When certain ratings agencies are given virtual monopolies on that business through government rules and regulations, they can make huge rating mistakes with few potential repercussions. Of course this too sends unreliable information into the markets that fools many rational businessmen. The fact is that all people, including businessmen, have the capacity to make mistakes. Unfortunately, government policies create distortions that cause more mistakes than would normally be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given this situation, I don't see any other solution than to recapitalize the banks as discussed by Snerd and KJ. The most practical and the least disruptive way of doing this would probably be the plan to have the government buy preferred shares in the troubled banks.
I'm still not convinced that direct capital infusion is the answer. Here is how I'm thinking about it right now:

The purpose of capital is to strengthen the balance-sheet. However, the purpose of that strength is to weather bad times and to inspire confidence in good times (because counter-parties know you can weather bad times).

Right now, we're in pretty bad times as far as confidence goes, and also in terms of the low values to which many assets have been written down. If the asset write-downs have been enough, it follows that the financial institutions who are still left standing now, and still have good capital-ratios are actually sound. So, why is everyone acting like they are not? The answer is that people are not sure.

Even the banks who own the assets are not sure and the nature of many of those assets are such that it is really difficult for them to be sure. I think most banks are honestly trying to evaluate things conservatively; but, even so, they cannot be sure about the value of many of their assets. Of course, their counter-parties -- with far less visibility -- will be far more wary.

Very broadly, a huge bout of capital infusion addresses the problem by saying this: okay, let's assume our assets are far worse than we think, let's assume they're off our balance sheet, but here is fresh cash that proves we're sound even if the bad stuff goes to zero!

But... if this is the logic, Paulson's original plan addressed it in part: where the government takes over the weakest of paper, and gives the bank cash instead. The part that is not addressed by Paulson's plan is the assets other the mortgage paper that he wants to buy. I think it is the exposure to other derivatives that is weighing on everyone's mind.

Kendall hinted at everyone opening up their balance sheets. I think that is the thing that must be tried. Someone has to say to all the players: okay, we don't trust each others credit-worthiness, so let us all make more disclosures that explain the quality of our assets. Disclose one more level of detail of the derivative books. It should be time-bound: say such additional disclosure to be for a period of 2 years only; it does not have to be public -- it can be limited to organizations that participate in the "disclosure sharing plan" (though it will leak out anyway). Also, it does not have to be compulsory. In fact, as a first step, they can even try an anonymous approach, that makes everyone aware of the extent of the total derivative book, without knowing who holds what. [This is done in other fields -- e.g. where companies inform a central agent about their salary structure, and the central agent anonymizes it, and produces aggregate information so that companies know where they stand, while still preserving some anonymity.]

Imagine a situation where one had a crisis of confidence, and the government was not around to provide tax-payer capital. Could the banks band together to come up with a solution? I think they could. The above is my attempt at one example; but, I think that is the attitude one must take to this problem.

I'm really wary of letting the government make a direct investment, either as a very long-term loan (say 20 year) or as shares (preferred or equity). While it will probably get us out of the current situation, I'm wary about the precedent it will set.

Witness, for instance, the recent bad press about AIG rewarding employees with a visit to a resort. Also, witness how political pressure created salary-control provision in the recent bail-out bill. Equity capital is out, for these reasons. Preferred should be non-voting, except on narrow issues related to protecting that capital. However, the political pressure of the AIG/salary-cap type will grow.

If all else fails, a direct capital-infusion might be required; but, I think that the financial institutions need to come up with a plan of how they can work through this together -- how they recognize strong players and weak ones, figure out whom they are willing to work with, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really wary of letting the government make a direct investment, either as a very long-term loan (say 20 year) or as shares (preferred or equity). While it will probably get us out of the current situation, I'm wary about the precedent it will set.

Witness, for instance, the recent bad press about AIG rewarding employees with a visit to a resort. Also, witness how political pressure created salary-control provision in the recent bail-out bill. Equity capital is out, for these reasons. Preferred should be non-voting, except on narrow issues related to protecting that capital. However, the political pressure of the AIG/salary-cap type will grow.

I'm also very wary of any direct government investment. You're correct in thinking that no matter what the investment (voting, non-voting, common, preferred, warrants, etc.), the politicians will have their hands in the cookie jar. If they can complain about CEO pay, they can complain that not enough low income home buyers are getting loans.... and then we're back to where we started. Nevertheless, if we're not going to buy up the bad debt, then I'm not sure what other avenues are available to improve the capital of these institutions.

As for your proposal regarding derrivatives, I'm not necessarily convinced that there isn't some acceptable level of transparency already provided for by the current accounting rules. Perhaps that's the case, I just don't know enough about it to make that judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume MBS means "mortgage based securities," and I don't understand why the claim is that there is no market for them now. Why not?

A market, by definition, requires a buyer and a seller. There are only sellers and no buyers. The central part of Paulson's plan (at least when it first passed) is to establish the government as a buyer.

I think having your business model be based on assets increasing in value over time is not a good strategy because there isn't anything that can be shown to always increase in value over time.

That's why we have a central bank. To insure that inflation is just large enough to make sure assets always increase in "value" over time, while also keeping unemployment as low as possible.

That is, I can't see how buying them would necessarily lead to losing money no matter what. Perhaps someone can explain that to me?

It woudln't necessarily. The point is that nobody wants to buy them. The first issue is that nobody knows how to place a value on them, therefore they don't know how much to offer. The second issue is that nobody (major players who would make a significant impact) has money, because most financial institutions are already in disintegrating situations. With the uncertainty surrounding MBSs, major players that are in relatively good shape would rather just stay away from the entire mortgage market right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But... if this is the logic, Paulson's original plan addressed it in part: where the government takes over the weakest of paper, and gives the bank cash instead. The part that is not addressed by Paulson's plan is the assets other the mortgage paper that he wants to buy. I think it is the exposure to other derivatives that is weighing on everyone's mind.

I think that there is a more distinct difference between the two approaches then you are saying.

Under the original Paulson plan, government would hold a reverse-auction to purchase MBSs with Treasury debt securities at discounted prices from the banks who post the lowest asks. The desired outcome is that the asset side of the bank balance sheets would be sufficiently clean enough for the bank to again start making loans and operating normally, while the government would simply hold the MBSs to maturity. That's why some people were predicting that the government would actually make money by holding to maturity. Kind of like starting a government run, taxpayer funded hedge fund in my opinion.

Under the equity-ownership plan, government would not directly hold MBSs. They would be exposed to MBS losses, but only to the extent that it could wipe out the equity stake. Under this plan, I suppose the reasoning is that the bank balance sheets would be strengthened, and banks would be able to again make loans and operate normally. When this crisis passes over, and housing values turn around, the MBSs will be worth more, and the banks can sell them for a small loss, or hold them until maturity on their respective balance sheets.

Another aspect of the equity-ownership plan is that it would "show confidence" in the long-term value of financial institutions. This would hopefully encourage others to take equity stakes in America's financial institutions as well. Kind of like what government did with....Fannie and Freddie.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why we have a central bank. To insure that inflation is just large enough to make sure assets always increase in "value" over time, while also keeping unemployment as low as possible.

I hope you understand that inflation does not increase the value of anything, and that it is not a legitimate function of government to have control over the currency of a nation in the first place. Inflation may well increase the monetary price of everything in an economy based upon that inflated money supply, but it does not increase the value of those items. Part of what made this whole mess possible was the central bank's role in having control of the currency -- i.e. the central bank of the Federal government through the printing press money not backed by any real assets kept pumping more and more actual dollar bills into the economy, giving the illusion that everything would go up in value over time, when in fact, it just cost more dollars to purchase them over time. In other words, one does not increase value in anything by devaluing the dollar.

However, charts I have seen in various videos clearly shows that home prices increased far more than inflation; and this was due to the increased artificial demand for houses brought about by the Community Reinvestment Act that brought a whole new level of players into the housing market. Normally, home values may increase over time if more and more people are moving into an area, such as what happened in the Dallas area. This was not artificial, as Dallas had a lot of jobs and expansions available, and is one of the reasons I moved here. But, by bringing in home owners on the lower economic level, the CRA created an artificial demand for all houses -- a demand that wouldn't have been there had the banks been permitted to operate prudently based upon an applicant's credit history.

One thing I'm not sure about in the details is why this all came to a head now? I understand that home construction increased steadily due to the artificial demand, and maybe it took them 15 years to build enough new houses that prices would begin to fall. I do know that in my apartment complex that I have been living in for 20 years, my rent continued to go up until recently; but I think that was because new apartments with better amenities were constructed at an unprecedented rate over the past 15 years, and the new supply finally met the demand, and my new lease was lower than the last one. I certainly wouldn't mind if that continued :fool: and there were further influences, such as them building an elementary school right across the street, which brought in a new class of families who had children. The apartment complex when I first moved in was an adult only complex, but that became illegal as it was "discrimination" against those with children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ack! :fool:Altruism and statism run amok:

"Zoellick said the financial crisis underscored the need for "concerted global action now, not just to deal with the crisis but to put in place new architecture, new norms and new oversight to ensure that this crisis never happens again.""

and:

"He said the bank and the IMF must ensure that as governments turn their attention to domestic matters, they do not step back from their commitment to provide billions in aid to poor countries.

""Aid flows must be maintained," Zoellick said. "Today's meeting of ministers was unanimous in that regard.""

In other words, when you are bleeding to death in the streets, it is still your moral obligation to take care of your poor neighbors, and to be regulated by those who will not let you get to your feet and take care of yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this worldwide financial crisis/panic/recession/depression is playing right into the hands of those who want a One World socialist dictatorship. Between the environmentalists with their Kyoto agenda, the UN and the World Bank we are seeing the tentacles of statism growing everywhere.

Robert Zoellick, head Commissar of the World Bank: "We need concerted global action now not just to deal with this crisis, but to put in place new architecture, new norms, and new oversight to ensure that this crisis never happens again."

New architecture? New norms? New oversight!?

Just what the world needs! More statism and altruism, especially in the places (like Africa) where capitalism is needed most. :pimp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this worldwide financial crisis/panic/recession/depression is playing right into the hands of those who want a One World socialist dictatorship.

You may be right, considering all of the countries nationalizing banks are giving the same song: Capitalism can't be trusted. They are saying this even though it was government regulations that led to the crises, and now they want more control to do more of the same.

"In return for the rescue [i.e. nationalization], the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC (RBS: 1.38, -0.07, -4.82%), Lloyds TSB Group PLC and HBOS PLC will cede majority control to the government and halt cash bonuses for bank board members this year. The banks will also be required to lend more money to small- and medium-sized businesses and homeowners in a bid to rescue the country's housing market."

Fortunately, at least some of the board members of those banks are walking out. The report attributes it to embarrassment of needing a hand-out, but I have to wonder if they are protesting the nationalization.

And they are all trying to rescue the housing market, when the best thing that can happen is for home prices to fall, which is what would happen if they just left things alone.

Aside from Objectivists, where are the pro-capitalist in a time like this? I think at least some of them may be falling for the idea that it was run-away capitalism that led to the crises; so guilt (unearned guilt) is keeping them silent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stocks are all way up now, so the people here who thought that the stocks were previously going down because of government intervention alone, now need to explain why more government intervention (govt buying bank stock) has investors enthused.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stocks are all way up now, so the people here who thought that the stocks were previously going down because of government intervention alone, now need to explain why more government intervention (govt buying bank stock) has investors enthused.

Because money is being pumped into the banking system, but they are not looking at the long-term consequences of the nationalization. They have a false trust that the government can do a better job than the previous private owners of the banks.

Also, it can be shown that markets over-react in times of stress, and that much of the sell-off was panic driven because they had already lost many tens of percents, and they decided to bail out (no pun intended) to save their cash reserves.

In short, the markets will rally, since I think we have hit the bottom or close to it, but I think it may be longer than a year before markets get back to where they were a year ago (i.e. Dow up to 14,000 range). Pumping money into the economy will spur economic activity, but at a heavy price of moving towards socialism or fascism.

In effect, this will create yet another economic bubble.

And there is still the question of where all of this money being pumped into the economy is coming from. If it comes from countries savings, that comes at the price of higher taxes; if it comes from fiat money being pumped in, then there will be a wave of inflation, which will be looked at as some assets increasing in value over time when that isn't really happening (see my previous post on that subject).

I don't think the long-term outlook is good, so long as governments (especially those of the West, the United States and Great Britain and Europe) continue to nationalize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the equity-ownership plan, government would not directly hold MBSs. They would be exposed to MBS losses, but only to the extent that it could wipe out the equity stake. Under this plan, I suppose the reasoning is that the bank balance sheets would be strengthened, and banks would be able to again make loans and operate normally. When this crisis passes over, and housing values turn around, the MBSs will be worth more, and the banks can sell them for a small loss, or hold them until maturity on their respective balance sheets.

My concern is similar to Snerds. Cash infusion is not the only thing necessary to shore up balance sheets, unless you're predicting that we're already at bottom on teh real-estate market, and that is an unsure bet at this point.

Buying up the assets certainly would be a way of recaptilization on the asset side, but not on the liability side where some party still has the obligation to meet the payment in the face of increasing default rates.

Also, the derivative CDS market appears to be as large if not bigger situation. The whole crisis throws this whole asset class into severe distress. Again this poses risk to those who hold the contracts and those who underwrote them so simply buying them up is insufficient, since the counter-party still has an obligation.

Bottom line is that where the market is overvalued, then write downs have to occur. Then recap, but both those parties with asset and liability issues. Preferably with a management change. And it needs to be all but simultaneous.

The simultaneous part means that for the free market to do this, it would imply wide-scale "collusion".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simultaneous part means that for the free market to do this, it would imply wide-scale "collusion".
Yeah. We need a Jekyll Island plan that leads to a free banking system this time around.

[Funny side note: I heard about Jekyll Island from my 10 year old son this weekend. His libertarian teacher had just given them a lesson about the collusion of the evil bankers of the world.]

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think there might be a chance that with everything that is happening our currency could become absolutely worthless?

Not possible, really. Think of it in terms of a nuclear "half-life", where a rod keeps losing half of its radioactive potency every ten years but never actually becoming nonradioactive. Heck, even bananas emit gamma radiation. The worth of the dollar can keep going down, but that just means you need more dollars, not that they'll become useless altogether.

But, technically, the dollar is already near worthless. A single quarter is probably worth more than a dollar. That is because the material the dollar is made of, cotton and other stuff, is worth way less than "value" denoted to it by the banks. When you get to thinking about how much that piece of cotton is worth compared to say the five and one hundred dollar values, you're talking about a *huge* difference and something that is sooner or later going to lead to inflation. That's why there's so much talk about the gold standard on these forums: We need money that is actually worth what it's made of. The markets would run on objective value and thus be more stable.

And look at the situation in Zimbawe. You could metaphorically say their money is worthless, but not literally. It just happens to be the case that a single loaf of bread costs millions and millions of dollars (seriously!).

I dread that day... walking into a store and the clerk laughing at me when I pull out a dollar because it has no value.

The clerk wouldn't be laughing for long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think there might be a chance that with everything that is happening our currency could become absolutely worthless?

The big dislocation I've seen discussed is that the dollar ceases to be the standard currency for global exchange. This wouldn't require a compelte collapse or devaluation, but enough of a question to arise as to the ability of the US to pay it's debt that the shift is ot another currency (probably the Euro). That by it self would have a significant dislocation as capital flees dollar investments.

Yeah. We need a Jekyll Island plan that leads to a free banking system this time around.

You got it. Not gonna happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. We need a Jekyll Island plan that leads to a free banking system this time around.

Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough Midas Mulligans out there to advocate a totally capitalist banking system.

But I think doing something like that these days would be illegal. You know, we just can't let those bankers decide how to run their own banks.

From further up in the article: "Jekyll Island is an island off the coast of the U.S. state of Georgia, in Glynn County; it is one of the Sea Islands and one of the Golden Isles of Georgia. The city of Brunswick, Georgia, the Marshes of Glynn, and several other islands, including the larger St. Simons Island, are nearby. Its beaches are frequented by vacationers and guided tours of the Landmark Historic District are available."

When my dad was stationed as a sailor in Brunswick, Georgia, we used to go to Jekyll Island and St. Simons Island all of the time to enjoy the beaches. I had no idea it used to be a banker's vacation resort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough Midas Mulligans out there to advocate a totally capitalist banking system.

This article attributes the record breaking rise of the stock market to Paulson calling the heads of banks to Washington. Can you imagine being called to Washington to be told you will have an enormous cut in pay and that you ought to do it for the good of the country and the financial markets?

I think Midas would have shrugged in outrage that he was taking the blame for governmental interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article attributes the record breaking rise of the stock market to Paulson calling the heads of banks to Washington.
The daily rise and fall of the market is not necessarily related to news coming out that day. On Friday, a lot of people thought the market had gone down so low so fast, that they were ready to buy. All that money came in on Monday. However, this is mostly "skittish money", in the sense that this is money that people had kept in cash while the market was at much higher levels. A huge jump like we saw increases the chance that people will pull this money out again, taking a short-term profits and hoping for the market to drop again. It is a fallacy to try to relate the current daily movement of the market to an actual rational calculation about the long-term outcomes of current government plans.

The Government has now decided to put half of the $250 billion (first tranche of the $700 billion) into 9 large banks.

None of the nine banks getting government money was given a choice about it, said people familiar with the plans. All of the banks involved will have to submit to compensation restrictions as mandated by Congress, people said.

... ...

Another $125 billion will be used to recapitalize other financial institutions around the country, the people said. Neel Kashkari, the U.S. Treasury official overseeing the rescue of the financial system, yesterday said the equity purchases will be aimed at ``healthy'' firms.

Under the plan to be announced today, the government will also guarantee for three years banks' newly issued senior unsecured debt, making it easier for them to refinance their liabilities, the people said.

Increasingly, long-term (10/20 year) U.S. government securities looks like the worst investment in the world (except if one is going to hold them for a very short while). As more and more private debt gets government guarantees, the U.S. securities lose more and more the reason for their "spread". Right now, people have money in U.S. debt, because they're scared. Once the situation has stabilized, and the government does not have a new plan every week, this money will go looking for yield.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...