Debt.

« Older   Newer »
  Share  
view post Posted on 27/11/2011, 15:51
Avatar

Member

Group:
Administrator
Posts:
756

Status:


@Fiona: Read it. Worth it.

I had some thoughts of my own - or experiments rather. I wanted to see how much you'd need to repay for a loan over 30 years, and how much profit that would be for a bank.

When a bank loans money, it will only get that back after a while. And that's where inflation can be rather nasty for a bank: It devalues money over time. On the borrower's part, inflation is a blessing: It means that a loan gets progressively easier to repay as his salary rises.

If a borrower repays a 10 dollar loan after 30 years, those 10 dollars are actually worth a lot less because of inflation. That's a bad deal for the bank, if they lent out their own capital, and they can't survive like that. I assumed that is why they charge interest. If the interest is higher than inflation, they are making money, so they can pay their staff and please shareholders. This made sense to me.

I was curious to find out how expensive a 4% interest loan would be over 30 years for the borrower. I picked a relatively long period to really see that inflation effect. I realized that the added interest would become less as you were repaying the loan, so I made an Excel sheet, in which I could add interest and deduce the repayment in iterations.

Year zero, the starting loan was 10 dollars in this case. Interest would be 4% all the time, so it becomes $10.40 in year 1. I figured out that if you want to repay the entire loan in 30 equal repayments, you'd have to repay $0.5783 each year. It pays for the interest and a little extra, which will slightly lower next year's interest, leaving a slightly bigger part for loan repayment each year.

At the end of 30 years, you'd have paid $0.5783*30 to the bank = $17.35 . The bank has nearly doubled it's $10 capital, by lending it to you, and waiting for you to do all the work for paying it back. But okay, you had a nice house to live in or whatever it is you managed to buy for $10 in year 0. (Maybe 2 ice creams?) What would have happened when you didn't borrow it, but instead decided to save that amount to an interest carrying deposit (let's say 3%), is that you would have had $27.51 at the end of 30 years. That seems like a lot more, but there will be inflation.

Let's say there's 2 percent inflation. That's not much each year, but it does mean that after 30 years of constant annual inflation, a dollar in year 0 will only buy the equivalent of 55 cents at the end of the period: the value of money has almost halved! But if you had saved up, that would still mean you can buy $15.19 worth of goods at the end, at year 0's rates. One and a half times as much as the guy who borrowed it and spent all that time paying interest to a bank.

However, that inflation also affects the bank. At the end, they have received $17.35 from you, but that is now only worth $9.58. Which means the bank in real terms has made a loss on you: It's capital has decreased in value while they were waiting to get it back from you - by more than they were getting interest from you. While you are repaying the amount, you pay less and less interest. The problem is of course that the amount you have already repaid is sitting still in this isolated example: If they lend that money out again at 4%, they will get the full amount of 40 cents on their $10 capital each year.

But let's pretend you're the only borrower for now. More fun that way. We didn't let inflation work in favour of you, yet. Although it devalues money, you will be receiving more and more salary. At the end of the period, you'll be earning almost twice as much as in year 0. That means repaying your $10 loan can be a lot easier towards the end, as a percentage of income. On an annual salary of $3, your constant repayments of 58 cents would be 19.3% at the first repayment and only 10.7% at the end, when income has risen to $5.43 for the same job. What you can do is to reserve a steady percentage for debt repayment to make it a little easier on yourself at the start. You'd have to pay slightly more towards the end, but you are earning more money then.

For the same length and interest, that steady percentage would be at around 14.8%. Your first repayment would be only $0.453, leaving you with roughly 12 cents extra to spend that year. Your last payment will be almost double that: about 79 cents. However, compared to the level repayments, you are not building off your loan as fast at the start, so you will accumulate more interest. As a result, even though this loan is easier to repay than the other one, it will cost you a little more. In the end, the bank will receive $18.37.

That is good news for the bank: With the inflation that money is still worth $10.14 in year 0's value, when they lent it. They made 14 cents over 30 years without having to do much for it. A 1.4% profit over 30 years is not going to make them rich off just you. So, again, they would do good to keep lending the pieces you repaid to others. But since I decided a little earlier that you were going to be their only borrower, they'll just have to forget getting rich off their bank.

I also decided to see what happens if this country suffers from a more inflation. All the other variables are equal. Inflation is a very respectable 6%. As we know (from the posts above, if you're like me), inflation is very nice to borrowers. We'd expect you to pay a smaller percentage, as your income will rise much faster towards the end of the period. And indeed, your payments as a percentage of income falls to ~8.2%. During the period, your salary will have gone from $3.00 to $17.23. Something interesting happens the first years, though: your loan will increase because the repayments are not enough to cover the interest. The first year, you will repay only 26 cents, while interest is 40 cents. Next year, interest will be slightly higher, because you have a higher loan, and it will increase further. Until about the 10th payment, when your salary will have increased enough to repay the interest on your loan, which is by then $10.78. From there on, the loan will start to decrease faster and faster.

That obviously means you will be paying more to the bank. In total you will pay them $20.51: But with significantly less impact on your wallet. Despite the increased payment, the bank will not be too happy. After 30 years of 6% inflation, a dollar will be worth only 17 cents. Meaning that your total payment of $20.51 is worth only $3.57 in year 0's value, when they lent you $10. That's a horrible loss. Unless...

Leverage.

I have just seen the documentary film Inside Job. One of the statistics they showed was the leverage that some of the largest banks operated with. Leverage is when you are allowed to use real assets to borrow/lend a lot more money. So for example, you can use $1 (as collateral), to lend out $3: the leverage then is 1:3. For the banks they showed in the film, leverage was between 1:25 and 1:33. Let's take the lowest one for our bank. At 1:25, they would need only 40 cents to lend you $10. If, at the end of the period, you only give them $3.57 worth in return, they still multiplied their capital by a factor 9 almost. In fact, if they would charge no interest at all, they would still more than quadruple the value of their 40c capital by lending $10 to you. It's one of the benefits of magic money.

If these banks figure out a way to lend their entire capital, with the leverage, to people who repay it in a year, they get pretty close to multiplying their capital value by 25 each year. Might be possible with 1 year micro-credits to farmers for example. Even if half of all the farmers who get these credits default, you're still making 12,5 times your investment. Literally making it. It was virtual money when you lent it, and you get real money in return. The only difference with printing money is the guy who issues it. If it's governments it's bad, but if it's private interests - meaning rich bankers - , then it's great.

We are told that printing money leads to inflation. Maybe the only reason we didn't get the massive inflation you would expect through this leveraging trick, is because trickle down doesn't work?

Edited by Vninect - 27/11/2011, 16:52
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 27/11/2011, 23:23




Not sure we didn't get massive inflation, Vninect.

In 1980 the average wage in the UK was £6,287 a year (nationwide comparison of house price v earnings)
In 1980 the average price of a house was £23287 (nationwide house price survey)

In 2010 the median full time wage was £25,900 a year (Annual survey of hours and earnings from ONS)
In 2010 the average price of a house was £165,482 (nationwide house price survey)

When it applies to houses we do not call it inflation. We call it a "strong housing market".
 
Top
view post Posted on 27/11/2011, 23:27
Avatar

Member

Group:
Administrator
Posts:
756

Status:


You did switch from average wage to median wage there, and we seem to be in a time of inflating housing prices, which might make them a bad indicator of inflation...

ETA: Even if median and average happened to be the same (which they're not), then average inflation would have been 4.83% per year. Is that massive?
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 27/11/2011, 23:35




The average in the first one is not specified: but if it is a mean and not a median it is too high in comparison with the second: that is true. The point I am trying to make is that the inflation applied to houses is about 710% and that for wages is about 567%. The inflation is in the house price increase and is not called inflation: so that part of inflation is hidden: as is the huge inflation in remuneration for the top 10% of earners.

To put it another way, the nationwide survey also mentioned that the cost of mortgage interest rose from 11% of household income in 2003: to 20% in 2008 (I think:might have been 2010)

Inflation refers to a general rise in prices: where it is confined to one sector it is often excluded from the government's preferred measure (though I think there are also measures which include house prices, I do not think that is the usual measure)

But the fact it is not in the general inflation measure does not mean it is not inflation in all practical ways: the push to keep interest rates low (sold as a good thing for borrowers) does not help: wages and benefits etc are tied to the headline rate of inflation so borrowers do not benefit if this is left out.

ETA: The ONS confirms the point I am trying to make, I think. They report that up till 2004


QUOTE
The table shows that over the third of a century since 1970, prices overall rose ten times, with food prices rising more slowly, by a little over eight times. This compares with an 18-fold increase in average earnings and a 36-fold increase in house prices.

Over a more recent period, 1990 to 2004, it is a similar story, with overall inflation outstripping the change in food prices, and average earnings and average house prices rising faster still. Of the commodities listed, petrol and a pint of bitter rose roughly in line with the growth in average earnings, while only cigarettes exceeded the growth in average house prices.



Edited by FionaK - 28/11/2011, 19:37
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 1/12/2011, 18:22




http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01...aliersofcredit/

This is a very clear paper which sets out some of the points I have been thinking about. In particular it argues that the neoclassical analysis is fundamentally wrong because it does not recognise the nature of the economy we actually live in. It takes my observation that the money supply is not under government control as self evident and goes on to consider the implications of that for the behaviour of private banks.

What is refreshing about this model is that it fits the facts as we see them play out: and it explains why this happens. It is simple to follow and there is no need to paraphrase it at all. I really recommend reading this

 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 4/12/2011, 21:16




www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15748696

I wanted to come back to this because I think it will help to understand the debt situation: though the difficulty of getting hard information should not be underestimated.

In the picture the arrows only refer to the banks: they show what the banks owe to governments and private debtors. So it is not possible to separate out private debt from government debt (that is public debt) even if you forget about the transfer from private to public when the banks were bailed out. The picture does not include non-bank debt either. This picture is about June 2011.

If you look at the USA the legend states:

Overall debt for the US is 10.9 trillion
GDP is 10.8 trillion
Government debt is said to be 100% of GDP
Foreign debt is noted as 101% of GDP

If you add up all the arrows shown US banks owe a total of 2,694.9 billion to the banks of the countries shown in the circle.

countryOwes (billions)Is Owed (billions)
UK578.6834.5
Germany174.4414.5
Japan244.8835.2
Spain49.6170.5
France202.1440.2
Portugal3.9-
Italy34.8-
Ireland39.8-
Greece6.2-
total1334.22694.9



The banks of the countries shown in the circle owe US banks 1334.2 billion

So the net debt of the US banks to those countries' banks is 1360.7 billion. As noted, that is both private and government debt

If the total US foreign debt is 10.9 trillion (101% of GDP) where is the rest of it? We are not told and neither are we able to say what proportion of this is government debt.

I have not been able to find figures for the same period nor figures calculated on the same basis. So it is not easy to calculate those figures. But Wiki gives a starting point. You hit the first hurdle when you compare the figures given for overall debt because the wiki number is not the same as the number in the first picture. Per wiki the total figure of US debt in Feb 2011 is 14.2 trillion. However that includes intragovernment debt and that is debt owed by the government to itself. If that is left out the figure at Feb 2011 is said to be 9.6 trillion: given the debt is growing it may be that by June that would rise to the 10.9 trillion given in the other data set: I do not know. They are close enough for my purpose I think

Accepting that is true for now the total foreign holdings of US treasury securities is given as 4439.6 billion and those are held by a variety of countries, per the list.

As I understand it all sovereign debt is in the form of government bonds (that might not be right) and so that should be the total of the government debt to foreign lenders. That seems to be broadly confirmed by the Wiki article because it says that the debt can be divided into marketable and non marketable securities. Marketable securities are bonds and notes and stuff which are held by investors at home and abroad and they can be bought and sold: non marketable ones are the intragovernmental debt which are debts for social security and medicaid and stuff like that. Again the numbers don't quite match up and wiki puts the marketable securites at 9 trillion, not at 10.9 as the first link states. I do not know how the discrepancy arises.

Of the total foreign debt in the first picture (10.9 trillion) it seems that only 4.4 trillion is sovereign. The rest must be private, I think. And this is why I am not happy to lump it together in this way: it does not seem to have very much to do with the public, and everything to do with private investors of whatever sort.

The level of government debt is further complicated by the fact that some items are "off balance sheet". We saw the effect of that with the Goldman Sachs super wheeze for Greece: but for different reasons there are a lot of obligations which arguably increase the debt in much the same way (even if for different reasons). That would probably include liabilities arising from government guarantees of junk mortgages and bank deposits. But such liabilities arise from the reckless decisions of private finance. They may well be in the realm of socialised losses because of the political decisions government takes. Iceland shows they do not need to be and so when I am trying to get a handle on what this debt is all about I do not think I need to include such obligations to get at the origins: only the outcomes, if we continue on the present incomprehensible course. So in line with how the government reports this debt I have chosen to leave out those potential liabilities: but the money paid out to actually support the banks and mutuals and whoever else has been bailed out is included: and so too is the "stimulus spending" I think.

Wiki also argues that there are enormous liabilities which should be added because of a shortfall in money for social security: but as shown in another thread that does not seem to be true so I am ignoring it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...nership_of_debt

If this is correct then the true foreign debt owed by the US is 4439.6 billion as wiki says. But the private sector owes the balance of foreign debt and that is 10.9 trillion - 4.439 trillion = 6.461 trillion. So what I am wondering is why are we bothered about sovereign debt as an international problem? So far as I can tell the USA is indebted to the tune of 100% of GDP: which is far above the fetish figure of 60% bandied about (and included in the EU rules set at Maastricht). The US also has a big budget deficit. And I am left with a big "so what".

The answer is in the interest rates charged for servicing the debt: just as it is in Italy. And those are said to be an inevitable consequence of the risk attaching to such high levels of debt. But if the private sector is as indebted as this appears to show it is curious that the same does not apply to them. And that is what is puzzling me. If the interest charged to governments is high because of the risk: then why is the same not true for the private sector? Yet interest rates for them are at an all time low. The government in this country says that this is essential because everybody has a mortgage: well everybody has a government too and that government is supposed to do one of two things: act in the best interests of all the people: or, if you are a neocon, act like a business. Not all countries have control of their currency: but the US does. When it advanced all that money to "stimulate the economy" and to "bail out the banks" what interest did it charge those banks and financial institutions? They seem to have used the money they got to lend to various governments at very high rates: was that true in reverse? I honestly don't know.
 
Top
view post Posted on 4/12/2011, 21:34
Avatar

Member

Group:
Administrator
Posts:
756

Status:


I am confused now. It seems in the article you cited in the previous post, the guy asserts that the stimulus is basically new money, founded on the idea that the base money level is important to start up new investment opportunities and debts. He also says that notion will not work in reality, because the debt comes first, and the base money supply is "tacked on". But it's still base money. Is that not secretly a form of "printed" money? Or is it a debt, that they got from somewhere?
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 4/12/2011, 23:03




As far as I understand it it is new money which the central bank issues. The point in the previous article is that they have to do that because the private banks blackmail them into it

But whatever kind of money it is the private banks are using it. I am wondering how much interest they are charged for it
 
Top
view post Posted on 5/12/2011, 19:11
Avatar

Member

Group:
Administrator
Posts:
756

Status:


Yes, okay; if that kind of debt is counted in the GDP versus debt figure, then you can't say much about the nation's economic health: The stimulus debt to the finance sector, although internal, means revenue for the nation.
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 5/12/2011, 20:21




I think there is some confusion because I have not clearly distinguished the stimulus spending from the bail out spending. That is partly because the terminilogy is different in different countries and I have not properly outlined them

In the US the stimulus spending is new money released into the economy in the form of tax rebates, infrastructure spending and the like. It is keynesian in conception so far as I can tell and it was done under a piece of Legislation called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The cost seems to have been about $780 billion. The flaw in it so far as I can see is that much of the money was given in the form of tax relief to individuals and companies. That has the effect of reducing government revenue and so tends to increase the deficit and the debt. There is no direct guarantee that the money will be spent to increase production, and therefore wages/profits which will give rise to tax income or increased GDP in the medium term. Direct investment in infrastructure etc does not suffer from this problem. Economists split pretty much as one would expect in commenting on it, I think.

The bail out money is a separate amount of money which was passed directly to those institutions, and indeed there has been very recent information showing that a great deal of money was not an open part of those arrangements, but was in fact passed over secretly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/s...-in-income.html

The money was also new money and the bail out was done under the Troubled Asset Relief Programme. It was funded at around $700 billion and the aim was to purchase falling bank assets especially mortgage backed securities. The idea was to increase liquidity in the bankings system by buying up risky mortgages for cash. The "asset" would pass to the government and the bank would get the money. It was argued that many of these mortgages would continue to be paid so the government would get the money back either through the repayments as the banks would otherwise do: or by selling the asset. Since the whole reason for doing it was that the mortgages were not backed by properly priced assets and there was a strong likelihood of default by the debtors that seems a bit thin to me: but that is what they said. It is obvious that the price of those assets was a matter of dispute. It was suggested that some should be sold on the open market to determine the price the government should pay: but I do not think that happened. Whether or no, it took worthless assets out of the hands of the private sector and onto the public purse. The legislation also provided that the government pay interest on the reserves the banks make to the central bank and that meant the banks could continue to enjoy high interest with no risk to the capital so deposited. The banks have choice about how much to place on reserve, curiously. But a deposit with the government is now a loan by any other name; a liability of the public which increased both debt and deficit. So the fed got toxic assets for a high price; and more debt and interest to pay as well. I gather the banks liked this idea. And this was intended to solve what was characterised as a credit shortfall due to illiquidity. Go figure. As a wee bonus the interest paid on reserves was higher than that attached to treasury bonds: so the government couldn't readily borrow on the market any more than anybody else.

As in this country the banks, with no strings attached to what they would do with the bail out money, did not use it to extend credit to business: instead they paid off some of their own debt or to acquire other businesses, as before. So the aim to save the economy by ensuring there was cash to invest in productive industry and jobs did not work in the US any more than it did here
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 6/12/2011, 11:42




The stupidity of those who work in banking and finance is mindboggling. The more I read the more I wonder how we can have allowed these morons to get into positions of power. Today I have been reading two things which reinforced that view.

The first was a McKinsey report on "deleveraging". "Deleveraging" means paying off debt, which might not be immediately obvious to you, btw. In the course of the paper they had this astonishing insight:

QUOTE
Rising house prices meant that the ratio of household debts to assets appeared stable in the years prior to the crisis. But the household debt compared with disposable income increased significantly, which should have raised a red flag long before the crisis hit.

You astound me, Holmes: not. Just what kind of a mouthbreathing thickoid do you have to be to miss that? Just how unaware of your own stupidity do you have to be to imagine that stating that in an investigation into the "crisis" does anything but show you up as the idiot you are? Just how widespread does that kind of thinking have to be to conclude that this "insight" will be helpful in identifying "asset bubbles" in the future. The dogs in the street are facepalming, and it is not easy for them!!

The second thing I read was this:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-2...everaging-.html

Banks are paying private firms to take away the toxic assets. In the name of the wee man what kind of madness is this? You judge.

For myself I think we should cancel all this debt and appoint responsible adults to look after these folk in a care home ..
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 19/12/2011, 14:54




Further to my comments on the relative indebtedness of the public and private sectors this was posted at Liberal Conspiracy

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/12/19/st...#comment-342087

The picture looks similar to what I outlined above re the US. So that is some confirmation that my understanding is not wholly off the mark
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 9/1/2012, 22:43




As noted above, Ireland did not put a foot wrong in terms of the orthodoxies of the neoclassical economists, nor did it violate any of the wise precepts of the IMF before the crash came. Ireland's problems are due to its acceptance of private sector debt when the banks crashed.

Ireland has not balked at implementing the recommendations of the IMF after the crash either: it has pursued an austerity programme which has damaged every Irish person and the aim of this was to balance the books and get back on a sound financial footing: that is what is confidently predicted as the outcome of such austerity.

So I was interested to come across this wee article

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaki...breaking49.html

Doesn't seem to be working....
 
Top
view post Posted on 10/1/2012, 01:00
Avatar

Member

Group:
Administrator
Posts:
756

Status:


QUOTE (FionaK @ 9/1/2012, 22:43) 
Doesn't seem to be working....

*gasp* <_<
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 23/1/2012, 14:44




I have been having another think about this. I have been wondering about the obstinacy of the committment to the austerity programme in the face of all he evidence that it does not work. It is incomprehensible if you accept that the main players are honest, frankly. I do not accept that any more.

Think about what is happening. As we have seen, Ireland followed the orthodox path prescibed my the neoliberals in every respect, if you are thinking about the government. Their problems stem entirely from the debt they took over from fraudulent and irresponsible banks. When they could not sustain that level of debt they accepted the demands of the IMF and other institutions to impose austerity measures and every person in Ireland is suffering as a result.

If the IMF and the ECB wanted to solve the problem what would they have done? Given that the interest such countries have to pay on their debt is a major reason why that debt is rising, it is obvious that needs to be dealt with, surely? Now consider how that works.

Governments raise money by issuing bonds. They are essentially getting a loan from the market and they have to offer an interest rate which persuades people to buy those bonds. The level of interest required to do that is dependent on what has happened to previous bond issues after they have been made. I think I have gone over how this works before, but no matter how often I think about it I cannot see the justice in what is done. I cannot see the sense in the IMF/ECB response, either.

Imagine you are a householder. You have bought a house which cost rather more than you can easily afford, and so you have no money left to buy furniture. If you have to save up for it you are not going to have a cooker for about 5 years. But the small amount you can save can be used to pay a loan taken out for that cooker, and you still have a little left to save for contingencies. So that is what you do:you take out a loan for the cooker. This is not a ridiculous decision. The lender looks at your finances and he decides he will lend you the £500 you need at 3% interest. You will repay it over 5 years. Everybody is happy.

You duly make your repayments every month. You don't default, though you are struggling a bit. It happens that your son also has a debt: he took it out to buy a bike when he was student. That was sensible cos it meant he could cut his transport costs and he had enough from his student loan to make the repayments. But he had no income apart from the loan so the lender demanded a guarantor. You signed.

Your son now leaves university and he can't get a job: he does not have enough income to pay his loan. He defaults and because you were guarantor you are now responsible for the debt, which is £100. You pay that too.

Your fridge breaks down. Again you do not have enough in savings to buy a new fridge outright: but you do have a little income you manage to save each month and so you can service another loan. You go to the lender and you ask for a loan assuming the interest will be 3%.

At this point you discover that your lender "lost confidence" in you when you took responsibility for you son's loan. And he sold your debt to someone else for £400. What that means is that the new owner of your debt is getting a higher rate of interest: he gets 3% of £500 but he only paid £400 for that. So he will not lend to you at 3% now: he will only lend at the new rate.

The analogy does not quite work because you only have two debts and two creditors; but for a country there are many and the debt is sold many times. It is sold for less than face value, however,and that is directly comparable. And if those bonds are effectively yielding a higher rate of interest lenders will demand at least that rate to buy new bonds: because they can buy existing ones at that rate on the market.

The reason they can do that is the loss of confidence in you ability to repay. Remember you have not defaulted at any point. This is crystal ball gazing, though it may be fairer to call it "educated guessing".

So if the ECB/IMF etc actually wanted to solve the problem they would guarantee your debt. That is what central banks do: and they can because they can print money. The only institution which can do that in the eurozone is the ECB. And they refuse. Giving you new loans is not going to solve the problem: it makes it worse, because the problem is disbelief in your ability to repay. Although the loan from the IMF may be at a lower rate of interest, thus cutting your outgoings a bit, you still have more debt. That makes no sense at all. The quid pro quo for cheaper loans is austerity: you have to stop buying electricity. That means your house is going to deteriorate over time faster than it would otherwise, and it also means you will get sick more often and so lose your income from time to time: so you will be even less able to service your debt. So the lenders do not get more confidence just because your repayments fall a little bit. So they won't lend. And so we go round the vicious circle.

To me it seems to follow that the IMF/ECB/World Bank do not actually want to solve the problem: they only want to appear to do that.

So what are they trying to do? Who knows? But what we do know is that the actual outcome is a drop in wages, pensions and employment rights. Since that is always the outcome it is not unreasonable to conclude that that is the actual aim. Or so I think

 
Top
42 replies since 28/10/2011, 13:13   1255 views
  Share