Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
I have got a horsey

Stock Market Meltdown!

Recommended Posts

Oops again!!

Edited by Medhb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More like

Oops aloss

I always prefered Oopsey Daisy anyway. :P

:lol: I actually like Oopsey Daisy myself :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, and I can't really talk for the States because I don't know exactly what the real estate issue is over there, apart from the fact that there has been a sustained rise in house prices

But the trouble, certainly here, is that you have an increasing shortage and over heated city rental market. It's becoming too costly for people to rent in the city, so now they're having to move way out past the outskirts of the city, which of course takes them miles and miles away from their jobs. It's too expensive to use a car regulalry these days and there's no underground railway system so public trasport isn't at it's most convenient, so people to be closer to work are taking out expensive mortgages, the re-payments of which they can negotiate with their lending institution which they wouldn't be able to do with a rental property.

Whether that's right or wrong is another thing, but that's why it's happening, certainly for here.

Massive housing foreclosures have been a problem. Large numbers of people have recently lost their homes to foreclosure, impacting the entire housing market, as well as the financial sector, and employment. Housing markets most affected by high foreclosure numbers appear to be in Nevada, California and Michigan.

Subprime lending has been a problem.

So many foreclosed homes are for sale in Southern California that these distressed properties will soon dominate the market, forcing prices down even further.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/f...0,7611521.story

Edited by eternal light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Massive housing foreclosures have been a problem. Large numbers of people have recently lost their homes to foreclosure.

Because lenders were handing out money to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walked in off the street. For God's sake I know a woman who bought a house with NO down payment and TERRIBLE credit! This is a woman that our FIRM would not even issue a firm credit card for business because her credit was so bad. This is a woman who regularly had her lights and power shut off because she wasn't paying her electric bills. This was a woman who owed three times the value on a USED car than it was worth because she was so high risk. But she got that house!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because lenders were handing out money to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walked in off the street. For God's sake I know a woman who bought a house with NO down payment and TERRIBLE credit! This is a woman that our FIRM would not even issue a firm credit card for business because her credit was so bad. This is a woman who regularly had her lights and power shut off because she wasn't paying her electric bills. This was a woman who owed three times the value on a USED car than it was worth because she was so high risk. But she got that house!!

Based on her income?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because lenders were handing out money to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walked in off the street. For God's sake I know a woman who bought a house with NO down payment and TERRIBLE credit! This is a woman that our FIRM would not even issue a firm credit card for business because her credit was so bad. This is a woman who regularly had her lights and power shut off because she wasn't paying her electric bills. This was a woman who owed three times the value on a USED car than it was worth because she was so high risk. But she got that house!!

Well that's the massive loophole that allowed lenders to pass the buck along to the banks, who then passed it along to investors, who then got screwed. People think they can get away with it, but it just goes to show, it always catches up with you. Sadly, people who simply had certain investments are also at a loss. So it's not just U.S. citizens that are affected, but those globally who bought stocks are shafted because they're worth crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on her income?

I really can't say. I know she makes a pretty good income and did pay down all of her debts before she applied. However, she doesn't make THAT much money.

She was ultra high risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that's the massive loophole that allowed lenders to pass the buck along to the banks, who then passed it along to investors, who then got screwed. People think they can get away with it, but it just goes to show, it always catches up with you. Sadly, people who simply had certain investments are also at a loss. So it's not just U.S. citizens that are affected, but those globally who bought stocks are shafted because they're worth crap.

Distress in the housing markets began with the subprime lending crisis. It's easy to buy a home, but harder to keep it because often there is no collateral to cover payments during a financial crisis or difficult job market.

If the subprime borrowers had established a savings account with the lender to build up interest earning collateral as they made payments, it would have offset the risk. But not all lenders counsel borrowers. They just get the signatures on the documents and collect the payments. You really need to build up collateral in this kind of market in case you must borrow.

Even if you are putting only $5.00 a month into a savings account with your lender (credit union, savings and loan or bank), you provide an offset to any amounts owed. Ideally you leave the collateral to earn interest forever and rely mainly on income to cover payments, thus keeping loan payments current and building up stable credit.

The main thing is to develop solid habits in regard to credit and savings. Of course it helps if you put aside more than $5.00 per month, but the habit of saving is an important one; that and carefully considering spending.

Subprime lending

A type of mortgage lending intended to serve borrowers who do not qualify for prime loans because of credit problems or a limited credit history.

There are 100% purchase programs for people who have a 560 credit score.

Subprime loans that are over 80% typically don't require Mortgage Insurance. The risk of default is already calculated in the rate.

Subprime loans are a great tool to get credit challenged borrowers into a home quickly without taking the time to clear up past credit issues. When going into a subprime loan it is often advised to opt for a 2/28 or 3/27 vs a 30 year fixed. A 2/28 or 3/27 loan is fixed for the first 2 to 3 years then becomes an adjustable rate thereafter and offers a lower rate than the 30 year fixed. This 2 to 3 year time period gives you the time to better your situation enabling you to qualify for a conforming loan with lower rates before the rate becomes adjustable.

http://www.lendermark.com/subprime_lending.htm

Edited by eternal light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Distress in the housing markets began with the subprime lending crisis. It's easy to buy a home, but harder to keep it because often there is no collateral to cover payments during a financial crisis or difficult job market.

If the subprime borrowers had established a savings account with the lender to build up interest earning collateral as they made payments, it would have offset the risk. But not all lenders counsel borrowers. They just get the signatures on the documents and collect the payments. You really need to build up collateral in this kind of market in case you must borrow.

Because they're not stuck with an unpaid mortgage. That gets passed along to the banks. The lenders meanwhile don't care because they collect their commission. Some people simply care enough to explain these things to clients, others maybe have a conflicted conscience between doing what's right by others and not losing their job, while others still just want to cash in. But your savings account idea may have worked, at least not made the decline as steep, perhaps manageable instead of the hot mess going on now. There simply weren't enough check points along the way. Maybe we can add something else now to death and taxes. Accountability all around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because lenders were handing out money to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walked in off the street. For God's sake I know a woman who bought a house with NO down payment and TERRIBLE credit! This is a woman that our FIRM would not even issue a firm credit card for business because her credit was so bad. This is a woman who regularly had her lights and power shut off because she wasn't paying her electric bills. This was a woman who owed three times the value on a USED car than it was worth because she was so high risk. But she got that house!!

The Dems must must be beaming ! ! ! !

It's their social justice at work......

And you, we, get to pay for it ! ! ! !

Re-Distribution of wealth, No, make that our hard-earned dollars, that do not earn what they used to, that has never been so easy to take away ! ! !

Edited by The Rover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You Republicons must be beaming ! ! ! !

It's your corporate welfare at work.......

And you, we, get to pay for it ! ! ! !

Re-Distribution of corporate debt,.. no make that debt of greedy, corrupt, corporate pigs that did not earn their millions and billions, they stole it.. and now the Bush REPUBLICAN administration is gonna make American taxpayers bail them out. Lack of corporate accountability has never been so easy ! ! !

[the depth of your self-delusion is amazing typical of repubs, Rover. :rolleyes: ]

BTY, One Drop, I am not deluded about this. I do not approve of the Corporate Welfare Bailout. We used to be on a Gold Standard, and not, on this leveraged, debt-driven economy.

We're surely headed to world governance, and world banks, etc, etc......

The Investment Banks now run the county. We The People . . . No More

I guess you could say that "funny-money makes the world go 'round."

Edited by The Rover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Savage is pure, unadulterated shit.

Coming from you Ephile, that is a compliment ! ! :rolleyes:

This Investopedia.com article gives a nice background to the sub-prime mess in a somewhat clear and easy to understand presentantion.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/su...w.asp?viewall=1

Of particular interest is the credit ratings agencies culpability in it all.

Here's an excerpt from the Article:

All of a sudden, even the subprime mortgage lenders had an avenue to sell their risky debt, which in turn enabled them to market this debt even more aggressively. Wall Street was there to pick up their subprime loans, package them up with other loans (some quality, some not), and sell them off to investors. In addition, nearly 80% of these bundled securities magically became investment grade ('A' rated or higher), thanks to the rating agencies, which earned lucrative fees for their work in rating the ABSs.

Edited by The Rover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because they're not stuck with an unpaid mortgage. That gets passed along to the banks. The lenders meanwhile don't care because they collect their commission. Some people simply care enough to explain these things to clients, others maybe have a conflicted conscience between doing what's right by others and not losing their job, while others still just want to cash in. But your savings account idea may have worked, at least not made the decline as steep, perhaps manageable instead of the hot mess going on now. There simply weren't enough check points along the way. Maybe we can add something else now to death and taxes. Accountability all around.

People need to understand how to improve their credit habits. Often they are more focused on spending than saving. They get bogged down in the everyday spending blind routine and lose perspective.

It's definitely a sound idea to open a new savings account with each major loan. Savings (asset) serves as an offset to debt (liability) and earns interest. If you contribute regularly and never spend it, the interest grows into solid collateral.

Lenders may not require collateral for loans, but you are much less at the mercy of market forces when there is sufficient collateral to insulate you from risk. Even if the lender does not require collateral, you should be in the habit of building collateral for your own sake.

As the outstanding amount of your loan decreases with regular payments, your savings conversely grows. After a period of time you have the debt paid off, and a new source of collateral for any future loans. Or, if the economy takes an odd turn during the life of the loan, you have a source of payments to avoid default. None of the foreclosures would have happened without a default. Fewer defaults = a more stable economy.

Lenders are not financial advisors though. You're correct that many just do their job within its narrow scope. What would Suzi Orman say? She seems to have intelligent advice on personal finance matters.

Edited by eternal light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specialized Insurance -- Credit Default Swaps --- Warren Buffet Warned you.... But you couldn't and wouldn't listen as your your 40% returns came in.....

But now ......

Thu Sep 18, 2008

CHICAGO (Reuters) - On Main Street, insurance protects people from the effects of catastrophes.

But on Wall Street, specialized insurance known as a credit default swaps are turning a bad situation into a catastrophe.

When historians write about the current crisis, much of the blame will go to the slump in the housing and mortgage markets, which triggered the losses, layoffs and liquidations sweeping the financial industry.

But credit default swaps -- complex derivatives originally designed to protect banks from deadbeat borrowers -- are adding to the turmoil.

"This was supposedly a way to hedge risk," says Ellen Brown, the author of the book "Web of Debt."

"I'm sure their predictive models were right as far as the risk of the things they were insuring against. But what they didn't factor in was the risk that the sellers of this protection wouldn't pay ... That's what we're seeing now."

Brown is hardly alone in her criticism of the derivatives. Five years ago, billionaire investor Warren Buffett called them a "time bomb" and "financial weapons of mass destruction" and directed the insurance arm of his Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) to exit the business.

LINKED TO MORTGAGES

Recent events suggest Buffett was right. The collapse of Bear Stearns. The fire sale of Merrill Lynch & Co Inc . The meltdown at American International Group Inc . In each case, credit default swaps played a role in the fall of these financial giants.

The latest victim is insurer AIG, which received an emergency $85 billion loan from the U.S. Federal Reserve late on Tuesday to stave off a bankruptcy.

Over the last three quarters, AIG suffered $18 billion of losses tied to guarantees it wrote on mortgage-linked derivatives.

Its struggles intensified in recent weeks as losses in its own investments led to cuts in its credit ratings. Those cuts triggered clauses in the policies AIG had written that forced it to put up billions of dollars in extra collateral -- billions it did not have and could not raise.

EASY MONEY

When the credit default market began back in the mid-1990s, the transactions were simpler, more transparent affairs. Not all the sellers were insurance companies like AIG -- most were not. But the protection buyer usually knew the protection seller.

As it grew -- according to the industry's trade group, the credit default market grew to $46 trillion by the first half of 2007 from $631 billion in 2000 -- all that changed.

An over-the-counter market grew up and some of the most active players became asset managers, including hedge fund managers, who bought and sold the policies like any other investment.

And in those deals, they sold protection as often as they bought it -- although they rarely set aside the reserves they would need if the obligation ever had to be paid.

In one notorious case, a small hedge fund agreed to insure UBS AG, the Swiss banking giant, from losses related to defaults on $1.3 billion of subprime mortgages for an annual premium of about $2 million.

The trouble was, the hedge fund set up a subsidiary to stand behind the guarantee -- and capitalized it with just $4.6 million. As long as the loans performed, the fund made a killing, raking in an annualized return of nearly 44 percent.

But in the summer of 2007, as home owners began to default, things got ugly. UBS demanded the hedge fund put up additional collateral. The fund balked. UBS sued.

The dispute is hardly unique. Both Wachovia Corp and Citigroup Inc are involved in similar litigation with firms that promised to step up and act like insurers -- but were not actually insurers.

"Insurance companies have armies of actuaries and deep pools of policyholders and the financial wherewithal to pay claims," says Mike Barry, a spokesman at the Insurance Information Institute.

"SLOPPY"

Another problem: As hedge funds and others bought and sold these protection policies, they did not always get prior written consent from the people they were supposed to be insuring. Patrick Parkinson, the deputy director of the Fed's research and statistic arm, calls the practice "sloppy."

As a result, some protection buyers had trouble figuring out who was standing behind the insurance they bought. And it put investors into webs of relationships they did not understand.

"This is the derivative nightmare that everyone has been warning about," says Peter Schiff, the president of Euro Pacific Capital at the author of "Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse."

"They booked all these derivatives assuming bad things would never happen. It was like writing fire insurance, assuming no one is ever going to have a fire, only now they're turning around and watching as the whole town burns down."

Edited by The Rover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As it grew -- according to the industry's trade group, the credit default market grew to $46 trillion by the first half of 2007 from $631 billion in 2000 -- all that changed.

An over-the-counter market grew up and some of the most active players became asset managers, including hedge fund managers, who bought and sold the policies like any other investment.

And in those deals, they sold protection as often as they bought it -- although they rarely set aside the reserves they would need if the obligation ever had to be paid.

Very risky. It's like living in the Florida Keys and using scotch tape instead of plywood to board up the windows ahead of a hurricane. Had the fund managers established reserves, the Fed might have only needed to provide oversight rather than intervene on a grand scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public losses for private gainThe effective nationalisation of huge sectors of the economy means US taxpayers are picking up the tab for failing banks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...amp;feed=uknews

Nouriel Roubini guardian.co.uk, Thursday September 18 2008 13:04 BST

With the nationalisation of Fannie and Freddie, comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke started transforming the US into the USSRA

(United Socialist State Republic of America).

This transformation of the US into a country where there is socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street (ie, where profits are privatised and losses are socialised) continues today with the nationalisation of AIG.

This latest action on AIG follows a variety of many other policy actions that imply a massive – and often flawed – government intervention in the financial markets and the economy: the bail-out of the Bear Stearns creditors; the bail-out of Fannie and Freddie; the use of the Fed balance sheet (hundreds of billions of safe US Treasuries swapped for junk, toxic, illiquid private securities); the use of the other GSEs (the Federal Home Loan Bank system) to provide hundreds of billions of dollars of "liquidity" to distressed, illiquid and insolvent mortgage lenders; the use of the SEC to manipulate the stock market (through restrictions on short sales).

Then there's the use of the US Treasury to manipulate the mortgage market, the creation of a whole host of new bail-out facilities to prop and rescue banks and, for the first time since the Great Depression, to bail out non-bank financial institutions.

This is the biggest and most socialist government intervention in economic affairs since the formation of the Soviet Union and Communist China. So foreign investors are now welcome to the USSRA (the United Socialist State Republic of America) where they can earn fat spreads relative to Treasuries on agency debt and never face any credit risks (not even the subordinated debt-holders who made a fortune yesterday as those claims were also made whole).

Like scores of evangelists and hypocrites and moralists who spew and praise family values and pretend to be holier than thou and are then regularly caught cheating or found to be perverts, these Bush hypocrites who spewed for years the glory of unfettered Wild West laissez-faire jungle capitalism allowed the biggest debt bubble ever to fester without any control, and have caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

They are are now forced to perform the biggest government intervention and nationalisations in the recent history of humanity, all for the benefit of the rich and the well connected. So Comrades Bush and Paulson and Bernanke will rightly pass to the history books as a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the USSRA.

Zealots of any religion are always pests that cause havoc with their inflexible fanaticism – but they usually don't run the biggest economy in the world. These laissez faire voodoo-economics zealots in charge of the USA have now caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression and the nastiest economic crisis in decades.

This article first appeared on Nouriel Roubini's blog and is edited and cross-posted here with the permission of the author. Nicknamed "Dr Doom", Professor Roubini is now widely acknowledged as having accurately predicted the present crises in financial markets.

Edited by The Rover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People need to understand how to improve their credit habits. Often they are more focused on spending than saving. They get bogged down in the everyday spending blind routine and lose perspective.

It's definitely a sound idea to open a new savings account with each major loan. Savings (asset) serves as an offset to debt (liability) and earns interest. If you contribute regularly and never spend it, the interest grows into solid collateral.

Lenders may not require collateral for loans, but you are much less at the mercy of market forces when there is sufficient collateral to insulate you from risk. Even if the lender does not require collateral, you should be in the habit of building collateral for your own sake.

As the outstanding amount of your loan decreases with regular payments, your savings conversely grows. After a period of time you have the debt paid off, and a new source of collateral for any future loans. Or, if the economy takes an odd turn during the life of the loan, you have a source of payments to avoid default. None of the foreclosures would have happened without a default. Fewer defaults = a more stable economy.

Lenders are not financial advisors though. You're correct that many just do their job within its narrow scope. What would Suzi Orman say? She seems to have intelligent advice on personal finance matters.

My Daddy always taught us "Pay yourself first" This is a man who has never paid one penny of interest in his life - an oddity for sure. I've told him I think he could get in the Guinness Book of World Records :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth be told One Drop......

I would rather see Ralph Nader in the White House, than Barac Hussein Obama, or Reps promising to be agents of change, from the good 'ol ways of lobbyists and special intrests groups.....

But realistically..... Nader doesn't stand a chance.

So, for reasons other than the economy..... I would choose a McCain/Palin ticket over Obama/and anyone..... I will chosee the LESSER of two evils. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oooh, come on now, do you really mean that? Again, I'm not against corporations, but you have to count the cost, and I don't only mean financially, which is myopic, and because it ignores all other consequences, is destructive. You don't have a problem with the government stepping in with law enforcement when someone is abused, killed, robbed, right? Why is it ok for corporations to get away with that? The only difference is that is happens on a larger scale and away from our eyes. I'm not anti-corporate, I'm pro-corporate responsibility. If they have the same rights people have, they ought to be held accountable to the same degree.

Thats totally irrelevant. When someone is mugged or killed or whatever, someone's rights are being infringed upon. That is when the Government can step in and take action. That's what it is here for. A company making money and increasing it's prices does not infringe on anyone's rights, thus the government should not be allowed to just step in and punish them for that.

Edited by wanna be drummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats totally irrelevant. When someone is mugged or killed or whatever, someone's rights are being infringed upon. That is when the Government can step in and take action. That's what it is here for. A company making money and increasing it's prices does not infringe on anyone's rights, thus the government should not be allowed to just step in and punish them for that.

Actually, it's exactly the right analogy. That's what I'm trying to convey to you, wbd, corporations have that exact effect except it is on a much larger scale. If I may suggest, watch "The Corporation" documentary as a starting point. Again, I'm not against corporations per se, or even against their making a profit by increasing prices. They're a reality and I'm not some idealistic tree hugger who wants to live off the grid and 'stick it to the man.' But I am adamantly against their rampant profiteering from engaging in exactly the kinds of acts that result in dire human costs worldwide (people, politics, environment) that on a smaller scale a sociopath engages in. Governments simply HAVE to step in when basic human rights are crushed. Again, profit yes, but not at ANY cost.

If you feel like checking it out, here's the link (I'm sure you can find the dvd at your local library):

The Corporation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nouriel Roubini guardian.co.uk, Thursday September 18 2008 13:04 BST

Has Nouriel Roubini ever lost his home to foreclosure? Exactly how would he govern a country shredded in chaos because the government ignored a meltdown in the private sector markets at the expense of the public?

The taxpayers may be paying for this adjustment in the American economy, but we could have been paying a lot more if the markets had gone on their free fall merry way with impunity.

If there were only a few foreclosures, I doubt the Fed would have stepped in.

Even with the massive foreclosures that we have seen, the Fed might have merely offered advice and direction. But with the combined process of the huge foreclosures, meltdown in the private financial sector, high unemployment and a busy hurricane season that has left millions without power, the government intervened.

Even Alison Krauss and Robert Plant cancelled a show in Texas due to the hurricane that devoured Galveston and clobbered Houston so that they could do a benefit for hurricane victims instead. Last week was not an average week in the United States.

A certain level of flow of goods and services is healthy in a free economy. Too much scarcity and we may start to look like our revolution prone neighbors. It's easier to govern a country that has a sufficient flow of commerce. After this latest kick to get the ball rolling, the Fed must return to the sidelines to referee the game.

Usually the Fed exercises oversight, preferring to let the free market forces prevail (laissez-faire), and intervenes only when it considers the alternative to be worse. Apparently this was one of those times. Young people in the market were being told by older market watchers that they would see an event like this only once in their lives.

My Daddy always taught us "Pay yourself first" This is a man who has never paid one penny of interest in his life - an oddity for sure. I've told him I think he could get in the Guinness Book of World Records :)

Daddy probably earns interest though, pays his bills on time and saves.

I really can't say. I know she makes a pretty good income and did pay down all of her debts before she applied. However, she doesn't make THAT much money.

She was ultra high risk.

Did she keep the house or was it foreclosed? If she paid down her debt, that might have improved her credit rating, combined with her large income to qualify her to buy a home, perhaps even with a conventional loan.

Edited by eternal light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it's exactly the right analogy. That's what I'm trying to convey to you, wbd, corporations have that exact effect except it is on a much larger scale. If I may suggest, watch "The Corporation" documentary as a starting point. Again, I'm not against corporations per se, or even against their making a profit by increasing prices. They're a reality and I'm not some idealistic tree hugger who wants to live off the grid and 'stick it to the man.' But I am adamantly against their rampant profiteering from engaging in exactly the kinds of acts that result in dire human costs worldwide (people, politics, environment) that on a smaller scale a sociopath engages in. Governments simply HAVE to step in when basic human rights are crushed. Again, profit yes, but not at ANY cost.

If you feel like checking it out, here's the link (I'm sure you can find the dvd at your local library):

The Corporation

No it's not the correct analogy at all. When someone is mugged or killed, someone willingly trampled on someone's rights and the other person suffered the consequences. When prices go up on an item (oil included) the consumer does not have to buy that product. They can simply buy that item from a cheaper source or not even get the product at all. There is choice. If Wal-Mart jacked its prices up 3x the daily average, consumers can go to K-Mart or something. Physical violence is involuntary for the victim. Consumers can voluntary make choices.

Oil companies are simply good businessman. Tough luck. Take public transportation, carpool, buy hybrids. You have options. Oil is not 100% the only way to go.

As far as that video, I can't watch it right now or probably even tomorrow. Really really busy, maybe Monday

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...