Jump to content

UK House prices: News & Views


Recommended Posts

CAN THIS WORK ?

 

The system is broken, here's how we fix it.

Don't tinker with ringfencing banks. Break them up as the first step to creating an effective local lending infrastructure. This is not pie in the sky. This is what the German banking system looks like. Its local public savings banks have supported small businesses and ordinary people throughout the recession, where big banks run away at the first sign of trouble. No annual pantomime of Project Merlin is required for our industrial competitors.

 

Don't create new money just to feather-bed bankers and enrich the wealthy. Create new money to create new jobs and new wealth. Use quantitative easing directly to fund the renewal of our infrastructure, to build the new green economy, eradicate fuel poverty, reskill the unemployed and tackle the climate crisis at the same time.

 

Don't let people become the slaves of distant creditors. It's time to talk of a massive relief of debt. The UK's problem is not really the public deficit that so obsesses the chancellor, but private household debt and the daunting treadmill that awaits a generation of young people burdened by student fees, relentless rents and a housing market that is still in the realms of fantasy.

 

 

Frankly,

The moral hazzard associated with bailing out those who recklkessly paid too much for their homes,

while so many others remained prudent, would bother me enormously.

 

The only way that I might support it, was if the amount of loan that was to be "forgiven" to bring the loan-to-value back to 100% were instead swapped into equity. I really think my formula for doing that* is viable and would be popular. But letting these reckless people off scot-free would be a huge, huge mistake.

 

*My Formula:

The higher percentage of the loan forgiven, the more equity which will go to the bank.

For example, if a Loan is GBP 150K, and the property's value is GBP 100K, then the bank would agree to reduce the loan balance by 33.3%, and in return would get 33.3% of the home's equity, plus a higher rate on what remains. This formula reduces the "moral hazzard", and will also give distressed homeowners a reason not to request a really huge reduction in debt.

 

An alternative might be to give the bank DOUBLE the amount of equity, to the amount their loan is reduced, and then give a market interest rate afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

You have correctly identified current worldwide economic policy. Same result, different route. Possibly different time line (unknown, in case you ask). Google the maths, google historical comparisons. Weep.

 

 

Marceau, do you mean the 'compound debt spiral', when you say google the maths?

 

I'm a bit maths challenged, could you spell out what in the maths makes doom inevitable after a certain point? Is it the reinhardt and rogoff 90% debt to gdp you are referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marceau, do you mean the 'compound debt spiral', when you say google the maths?

 

I'm a bit maths challenged, could you spell out what in the maths makes doom inevitable after a certain point? Is it the reinhardt and rogoff 90% debt to gdp you are referring to?

 

Yes, BUT.

 

Take a look at Keen and (I hate to say it) Denninger. They explain the basic figures in simple and understandable terms. Personally I don't think the R&R 90% can be applied to this crisis. It may work in isolation, but not for the multiple concurrent debt burdens we have at the moment, the critical level of debt to GDP could be much, much higher in these circumstances. Admittedly, though, the historical comparisons using the R&R figures are devastating.

 

For more depth take in viewpoints not usually seen here, including the accounting offered by the chartalists. Their appraisal of the process which got us here and continues to this day is impeccable IMO. Their conclusions, however, seem to be totally disconnected from reality - for them deficits really don't matter and it's a real eye opener. Once you can understand the differences between their appraisal, the neo-classical and austrian approaches I think you have enough to form your own basic view.

 

Compounding debt is only part of the problem, albeit a very big one. The real issue is structural and cultural. Unwinding promises and changing embedded practices can be extremely challenging, even on a small scale. In the case of western societies the scale is unprecedented and I doubt the ship can be turned around while maintaining any semblance of order. It's the order that is important, without it events spiral out of control. My take is the maths drives the viability of good order, then order (of lack thereof) drives the sentiment, speeding the process. For what it's worth I think we get a long emergency with a short catastrophe at the end. Then we see what those zeros really mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Millions of people take no notice of the macro economic/political system they live in. They discount their importance and it affects them as much as it affects you. Or do you have a way of not be affected?

 

 

 

What would reading hundreds of posts on this forum achieve - in terms of dealing with what is, allegedly, ahead? Having some gold buried in the garden doesn't sound as though it will be much use. I buy enough insurance to pay the mortgage off if I die. That's it - oh and what I am legally required to have.

 

 

You seem unable to resist the temptation to try to portray me as some sort of hippy nutter. But what's your prescription? In fact whistling happy tunes - if this means carrying on as normal and not starting to stockpile food and fuel then I'd say it's not such a bad idea.

 

 

 

I assume from what you have written that you are busy building a bunker and stockpiling food and fuel - hidden away somewhere so the marauding hordes won't find it when everything you predict takes place.

 

All of your points are rebutted elsewhere in my post. Please re-read.

 

My final comment is that stockpiling will not work. Make of that what you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compounding debt is only part of the problem, albeit a very big one. The real issue is structural and cultural. Unwinding promises and changing embedded practices can be extremely challenging, even on a small scale. In the case of western societies the scale is unprecedented and I doubt the ship can be turned around while maintaining any semblance of order. It's the order that is important, without it events spiral out of control. My take is the maths drives the viability of good order, then order (of lack thereof) drives the sentiment, speeding the process. For what it's worth I think we get a long emergency with a short catastrophe at the end. Then we see what those zeros really mean.

I agree that the problem is big ... and we have not faced up to it yet as a society.

 

I am actually more optimistic than some here, that we can make progress in meeting the challenges - through measures like a slowing growth rate, a lower birth rate, and a dramatic scaling back of promises and expectations.

 

Unfortunately, the hoped-for progress has not started yet, because the Voters are not yet ready to vote for politicians that tell unpleasant truths. But the days of Truth-telling get ever closer, and I think we may even find that by next November, voters are more willing to cast their vote for the man who will promise them pain - The pain that is needed to begin to really fix America's problems.

 

David Cameron took on some truth-telling after his election. I am hopeful that the next President will take it as a core mission of his new presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rents up, again.

 

Private sector rents 'at new high in England and Wales'

 

Average private sector housing rents in England and Wales rose by another 0.7% last month, to hit a new monthly high of £718, a report has said.

 

It means rents have risen by 4.3% in the past 12 months, with tenants paying an average £29 a month more than they were a year ago.

 

"In many cases, buying a home is now cheaper on a monthly basis - provided renters can get past the stumbling block of the substantial deposit requirements," said Mr Newnes.

 

"For the majority, saving a £25,000 deposit is a Herculean task as inflation and rents climb - and most would-be buyers are biting the bullet and prolonging their stay in increasingly costly rental accommodation.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15384791

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rents up, again.

"In many cases, buying a home is now cheaper on a monthly basis - provided renters can get past the stumbling block of the substantial deposit requirements," said Mr Newnes.

"For the majority, saving a £25,000 deposit is a Herculean task as inflation and rents climb - and most would-be buyers are biting the bullet and prolonging their stay in increasingly costly rental accommodation.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15384791

I am confused by that.

 

Does Mr Newnes think that once a 25% deposit has been put into a property, it should be ignored? What pure idiocy that is !

 

If you compare renting 100% of a house with paying a mortgage on 75% of a house's cost, of course the house is cheaper.

 

The only fair comparison is to assume one can finance 100% - In other words, the homeowner should imagine he is paying himself the same mortgage rate that he pays the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused by that.

 

Does Mr Newnes think that once a 25% deposit has been put into a property, it should be ignored? What pure idiocy that is !

 

If you compare renting 100% of a house with paying a mortgage on 75% of a house's cost, of course the house is cheaper.

 

The only fair comparison is to assume one can finance 100% - In other words, the homeowner should imagine he is paying himself the same mortgage rate that he pays the bank.

 

Not sure he meant it that way, (the comparisons we have discussed here previously do take the deposit into account in the calculations). If he did, then I agree, that's daft.

 

Think he more meant that it is really difficult to save the 25% deposit in the first place, especially when people are paying higher rents.

 

As such, it’s a bit silly not allowing people, that can obviously afford to pay a monthly mortgage payment that would be LESS than their monthly rental payments, to buy a place, where it is cheaper for them to do so.

 

However, you would have to insure against the potential fall in prices (and negative equity) if near 100% loans were to make a comeback, or hold the lender responsible so that they’d be a bit more careful who they gave them to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years of this HPC obsession have resulted in my constantly watching, observing and noting my local market. And, here in leafy Surrey, I have the feeling that the market is, once again, grinding to a halt.

 

Certainly, not a lot has been selling over the last year, but until a few months ago the odd one was selling - and going through.

 

Now the ones with Sale Agreed are turning back to For Sale some weeks after going under offer and others, nice houses (relatively) reasonably priced, are just sitting there, month in, month out.

 

I'm wondering if the cash that was driving the market is, finally, beginning to dry up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years of this HPC obsession have resulted in my constantly watching, observing and noting my local market. And, here in leafy Surrey, I have the feeling that the market is, once again, grinding to a halt.

 

Certainly, not a lot has been selling over the last year, but until a few months ago the odd one was selling - and going through.

 

Now the ones with Sale Agreed are turning back to For Sale some weeks after going under offer and others, nice houses (relatively) reasonably priced, are just sitting there, month in, month out.

 

I'm wondering if the cash that was driving the market is, finally, beginning to dry up.

 

Funny you say that, I have been noticing the same thing here. Houses that were 'sold' are coming back on the market. Lots of places just sitting. A few have gotten offers after dropping advertised prices by 10 or 15 grand. A nice one bed flat in a converted mill was dropped from £89 950 to 84,950 and has finally sold for -- brace yourself -- £64.500. That is the advertised price, anyway. I realise it is not a house, but as a percentage, that is a huge haircut.

 

On the lettings front, after a shortage of 4+ bed houses being available, or being quickly snapped up over the summer, since September these have been accumulating on the market. There are now several that have been available since the start of Sept. I guess everyone with sprogs wanted to get moved and be done with it, so now they aren't moving.

 

One place in particular I would be interested in. A nice 5-bed victorian, they are asking £975 and it has been advertised since the end of August. Vacant since end of Sept. So one month vacant, and owner looking to do a deal. How much should i offer? I recall someone saying that unless you are embarrassed by your offer, you are offering too much. I was thinking of saying £750 and seeing where we go with that.

 

Bottom line is, I would like to live there for at least a year. I am finding my current place is a bit small, so it would suit me to move, even to pay a bit more. But I am not desperate to move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're forgetting the effect those zeros have on people's lives. Yes collectively the Western world will muddle through, but that isn't the point, it's the suffering people have to endure to muddle through that's the problem. Have you ever been unemployed when you don't know whether to spend your last tenner on food to fill your stomach or buy yourself a few pints to cheer yourself up? Life can be bleak even during economic prosperity and not talking about something doesn't make it go away. You're right to be positive about the future, but that shouldn't be at the expense of appreciating the gravity of the present situation. The reason you think this crisis isn't a real problem, is because for most it hasn't happened yet.

 

 

 

Very well said. People choose to ignore the apparent warning signs as it makes them uncomfortable. Living within a bubble has its own advantages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I've never heard David Cameron say 'the end of the world is nigh' - on the contrary - he says things are serious, we have a lot of money to pay back, which is why we've got to get our heads down, remove the shackles from business blah, blah - it might be all words but he does strike an optimistic note on the whole.

 

The newscasters, by comparison, you't think they were bringing good news the way they shout the headlines. Eurozone in CRISIS! Why not - Eurozone Finance Ministers meed today to discuss latest tranche of Greek bailout. But, no, it has to be ... BOING! EUROZONE IN CRISIS!

 

Stuff it, I am not listening to them any more.

 

If you had a mate who spoke to you all the time in the way that newscasters do ... have you heard the lates on this, did you hear about that ... we all know people like that and avoid them like the plague because they bring you down. Well that's what the media is doing to the whole country.

 

 

I do not know what to make of what you have written above. Though I agree the news usually is depressing, it is really the sign of the times.

 

 

On the contrary, there are certain media outlets which are not afraid to tell the complete truth, it worth listening to them.

 

 

David Cameron will never tell you or me how bad the situation is. If they did there will be total chaos within a week. They are trying to manage the outcome, but they cannot. Even if they try their best. The markets can turn on a dime and tomorrow there could be a bank holiday. Can you guarantee there wont be one? The people at the end of the que of a bank going under wont get any money. Similarly people who believe the politicians will ensure the economy will be saved and all will be well next year are simply deluded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAN THIS WORK ?

 

The system is broken, here's how we fix it.

Don't tinker with ringfencing banks. Break them up as the first step to creating an effective local lending infrastructure. This is not pie in the sky. This is what the German banking system looks like. Its local public savings banks have supported small businesses and ordinary people throughout the recession, where big banks run away at the first sign of trouble. No annual pantomime of Project Merlin is required for our industrial competitors.

 

Don't create new money just to feather-bed bankers and enrich the wealthy. Create new money to create new jobs and new wealth. Use quantitative easing directly to fund the renewal of our infrastructure, to build the new green economy, eradicate fuel poverty, reskill the unemployed and tackle the climate crisis at the same time.

 

Don't let people become the slaves of distant creditors. It's time to talk of a massive relief of debt. The UK's problem is not really the public deficit that so obsesses the chancellor, but private household debt and the daunting treadmill that awaits a generation of young people burdened by student fees, relentless rents and a housing market that is still in the realms of fantasy.

 

 

Frankly,

The moral hazzard associated with bailing out those who recklkessly paid too much for their homes,

while so many others remained prudent, would bother me enormously.

 

The only way that I might support it, was if the amount of loan that was to be "forgiven" to bring the loan-to-value back to 100% were instead swapped into equity. I really think my formula for doing that* is viable and would be popular. But letting these reckless people off scot-free would be a huge, huge mistake.

 

*My Formula:

The higher percentage of the loan forgiven, the more equity which will go to the bank.

For example, if a Loan is GBP 150K, and the property's value is GBP 100K, then the bank would agree to reduce the loan balance by 33.3%, and in return would get 33.3% of the home's equity, plus a higher rate on what remains. This formula reduces the "moral hazzard", and will also give distressed homeowners a reason not to request a really huge reduction in debt.

 

An alternative might be to give the bank DOUBLE the amount of equity, to the amount their loan is reduced, and then give a market interest rate afterwards.

 

I have a better solution. This solution was not thought by me but it makes a lot of sense.

 

 

 

Set gold free. Let it rise to whatever price. let it achieve is only role. The best store of value. Let it reclaim its role which has been kept hidden from a couple of generations. Keep global fiats as a unit of account and medium of exchange. Let there never be any welfare. Let people work for their living.

 

 

 

All the above comes with a few consequences. End of the global debt based economy with US dollar as a so called wealth reserve with a concurrent demise of the IMF and WB.

 

Do you think this will not happen? I think it will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Set gold free. Let it rise to whatever price. let it achieve is only role. The best store of value. Let it reclaim its role which has been kept hidden from a couple of generations. Keep global fiats as a unit of account and medium of exchange.

Gold Sovereigns and Britannias are already not subject to VAT or CGT in the UK. How do you propose they are set more free to be a store of value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Cameron will never tell you or me how bad the situation is. If they did there will be total chaos within a week.

 

Which is my point. David Cameron is not stupid enough to tell us how bad the situation is ... in that we, surely, already know. We're in a lot of debt, we're going to be in a lot more before we ever get to the point of paying it back and, I think it is accurate to say, my as yet unborn grandchildren will be repaying the debt taken on to keep our public services going today - for the whole of their lives. A trillion or more is not going to get paid back in 10 years - even at 10 billion a year it will take a 100 years.

 

But the media are stupid enough to tell us, 24/7, how bad the situation is. They told me yesterday - all day - they really don't need to tell me again today. I'm already uncertain enough about the future - do the media want me to completely stop spending money on anything other than essentials and hoard my money in my house. Because, if we all do that, there will be total chaos in a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny you say that, I have been noticing the same thing here. Houses that were 'sold' are coming back on the market. Lots of places just sitting. A few have gotten offers after dropping advertised prices by 10 or 15 grand. A nice one bed flat in a converted mill was dropped from £89 950 to 84,950 and has finally sold for -- brace yourself -- £64.500. That is the advertised price, anyway. I realise it is not a house, but as a percentage, that is a huge haircut.

 

On the lettings front, after a shortage of 4+ bed houses being available, or being quickly snapped up over the summer, since September these have been accumulating on the market. There are now several that have been available since the start of Sept. I guess everyone with sprogs wanted to get moved and be done with it, so now they aren't moving.

 

One place in particular I would be interested in. A nice 5-bed victorian, they are asking £975 and it has been advertised since the end of August. Vacant since end of Sept. So one month vacant, and owner looking to do a deal. How much should i offer? I recall someone saying that unless you are embarrassed by your offer, you are offering too much. I was thinking of saying £750 and seeing where we go with that.

 

Bottom line is, I would like to live there for at least a year. I am finding my current place is a bit small, so it would suit me to move, even to pay a bit more. But I am not desperate to move.

 

I presume you are in the North ... down here in the South I bought last year because to rent a similar property to the one I was being kicked out of was going to move me up from £1100 a month to £1700 a month - 2 grand if I wanted a similar sized house. Rents here are truly nuts. How people afford them baffles me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well said. People choose to ignore the apparent warning signs as it makes them uncomfortable. Living within a bubble has its own advantages.

 

I have asked this a couple of times - no replies yet. Let's say I don't ignore the warning signs - what should I DO?

 

Get in a stock of baked beans? Buy gold - not much use to anyone when the chaos starts. Take my bit of money out of the bank and bury it?

 

What is the prescribed course of action?

 

Is it 'keep calm and carry on'? Because, to me, that really does seem the most sensible option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have asked this a couple of times - no replies yet. Let's say I don't ignore the warning signs - what should I DO?

 

Get in a stock of baked beans? Buy gold - not much use to anyone when the chaos starts. Take my bit of money out of the bank and bury it?

 

What is the prescribed course of action?

 

Is it 'keep calm and carry on'? Because, to me, that really does seem the most sensible option.

 

Might as well.

 

There's no point worrying about it, you'll just stress yourself into an early grave.

 

It will all probably rumble on for several years and turn out just the same as before.

 

If not, there's not too much you can do about it anyway.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNE-5TVAmg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presume you are in the North ... down here in the South I bought last year because to rent a similar property to the one I was being kicked out of was going to move me up from £1100 a month to £1700 a month - 2 grand if I wanted a similar sized house. Rents here are truly nuts. How people afford them baffles me.

 

Baffles me, too. I suppose some people are simply forced to spend a ridiculous percentage of their income on shelter. "Forced" in that they need to live close to their work, for eg.

 

And yes, am up north. I reckon to buy this place would cost me at least £1700 a month even with a decent downpayment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what the Dr markets ordered, the "bazooka" option!.

 

EU rescue fund to be increased "several fold".

 

FTSE 6000 by xmas?

 

Get them assets quick guys :lol:

 

Euro Bailout Fund 'To Be Boosted Several Fold'

 

EU leaders have said they plan to increase the powers of the bailout fund 'several fold', following an emergency summit at the EU's headquarters in Brussels.

 

Of course, you do realise that if they actually do this, along with the recap of the banks and ~50% haircut for Greece, that pretty much means the crisis is over (well for a few months to a year at least :rolleyes: ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what the Dr markets ordered, the "bazooka" option!.

 

EU rescue fund to be increased "several fold".

 

FTSE 6000 by xmas?

 

Get them assets quick guys :lol:

 

Euro Bailout Fund 'To Be Boosted Several Fold'

 

 

 

Of course, you do realise that if they actually do this, along with the recap of the banks and ~50% haircut for Greece, that pretty much means the crisis is over (well for a few months to a year at least :rolleyes: ).

 

Yup. Buys time, fixes nothing. That 50% haircut in itself will probably eat the whole bailout fund. All I can say is LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is my point. David Cameron is not stupid enough to tell us how bad the situation is ... in that we, surely, already know. We're in a lot of debt, we're going to be in a lot more before we ever get to the point of paying it back and, I think it is accurate to say, my as yet unborn grandchildren will be repaying the debt taken on to keep our public services going today - for the whole of their lives. A trillion or more is not going to get paid back in 10 years - even at 10 billion a year it will take a 100 years.

 

But the media are stupid enough to tell us, 24/7, how bad the situation is. They told me yesterday - all day - they really don't need to tell me again today. I'm already uncertain enough about the future - do the media want me to completely stop spending money on anything other than essentials and hoard my money in my house. Because, if we all do that, there will be total chaos in a week.

It's a bit of an odd one, game theory I think, what's good for the indivudal is not good for the group.

 

It makes perfect sense for individuals to pay down debt, build up a war chest, keep a low profile, etc... But, like you say, if everyone did that we'd get into a downward spiral, so many jobs rely on a certain level of consistent discretionary spending. That's not a bad thing, it's a sign of a well developed nation that so much of our activity is entirely discretionary, but it does make it very sensitive to shocks and all the more annoying that so much demand was brought forward by letting people leverage up so far.

 

I think I disagree that the media are stupid for telling us things are bad, they're thankfully not a particularly co-ordinated group. I think I'd feel distinctly uneasy about a media outlet having a 'let's keep positive and things will improve' agenda, makes me think of Soviet news reports about rising tractor production.

 

You would advise friends or family that the future looked very uncertain and not to rely on job security, rising wages, rising asset prices, etc... You just need other faceless groups of people to be the ones that continue their high level of discretionary spending.

 

i.e. Sky News gives it's viewers what they think is a realistic outlook, but hopes that non-Sky News viewers continue to spend and keep Sky News viewers in jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I disagree that the media are stupid for telling us things are bad, they're thankfully not a particularly co-ordinated group. I think I'd feel distinctly uneasy about a media outlet having a 'let's keep positive and things will improve' agenda, makes me think of Soviet news reports about rising tractor production.

 

They may not be co-ordinated but, surely, they might as well be. Every media channel is telling us the same thing, over and over again, all day, every day.

 

I'd just like some balance. It's all bad news - rammed down your throat every day. Meanwhile, as I sit here typing this, dozens of cars go by my window as people have got up and gone to work - to earn their money and spend it. Same as they have done every day for years - same as they will do every day for years.

 

I'm not saying things aren't bad, they are - it it scandalous that debt is being taken on now to pay for public services now that our grandchildren will pay back (how on earth they'll look after us and pay back our debts and provide for their own futures baffles me) - but ramming it down people's throats really isn't doing anyone any good.

 

I, and I can hear the howls of protest already, would like to see some sort of government media channel. A bit like the Soviet tractor thing even ... to focus on the positives in our society - the number of people treated in the NHS - new roads opened - new (free?) schools opened - big export contracts won - something - anything - to balance the relentless, depressing messages from the media. Seriously, some nights after watching News at Ten and Newsnight, I have gone to bed and sat on the bed with my head in my hands. So, I've stopped listening to them. Even my grown up kids - and I have been very careful not to pass my views on to them (I am very careful not to join in the general spreading of doom and gloom) have started saying - when the news comes on the box - 'do we have to watch this - it's depressing'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gold Sovereigns and Britannias are already not subject to VAT or CGT in the UK. How do you propose they are set more free to be a store of value?

 

 

You are smart to notice this as this is the basis of the expected new gloabl financial structure post collapse of USD as the wealth reserve. The CGT, VAT free gold in UK is because of European treaty. I think ( though I may be wrong) the CGT and VAT free gold is not a case in most of the world except the EU.

 

 

I recommend you read FOFOA. He has a few answers to the many questions we have.He does not claim to know it all, like many in financial community do. Euro will survive and it will get stronger thats what FOFOA has always maintained. Yesterday george soros also said this on a BBC r 4 interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...