|
cowofwar posted:I think Canadian banks actually are very large and have lots of international exposure. This is the main reason. Our banks are very internationally diversified, and most of the large banks have up to 50% of their value in international assets, while the US has a much larger contingent of local / regional banking that doesn't have an international component. Same comment on non-bank financials although they're not quite as skewed. The other difference is that the US economy is so much larger that it can handle having a larger portion of businesses on a public market. Since you need a certain critical mass for a public listing to make sense, the size of the market there means that you end up with a larger proportion of total business activity being public. I don't have a stat, but Canada has relatively more private business than the US because of this. Keep in mind also that the S&P 500 includes only the largest companies in the US, while the S&P TSX Index commonly quoted is a composite and essentially includes a weighting of almost every material stock on the TSX. The S&P 500 misses those small to mid-size banks in the US that aren't big enough to crack the 500. Don't forget the TSX is also ~30% materials stocks while a much much lower percentage in the US, so Lexicon's point re: the overall diversification of our economy also holds true. There are whole sectors that don't exist in Canada that do in the US (much of the healthcare industry, for example). To avoid derailing too much, I'm actually considering buying in (North) Vancouver in the relatively near term. There are definitely some crazy prices here, although there are also some more reasonable properties, especially as some of the air has come out of the market the past year or two. You just need to be selective where and when you look. I laughed at the ones referenced in the OP though as those are essentially teardown lots in high-rent neighborhoods, so a bit disingenuous to use those as reference to the goofy pricing here. You can find examples like that scattered all through Shaughnessy and West Van, for example. Similar things exist in some parts of Rosedale or Lawrence Park in Toronto.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:East Van, where the second one is located, is a high rent neighborhood comparable to Shaughnessy and West Van? East Van as a district is definitely not comparable to Shaughnessy and West Van, but there are parts of it that have moved beyond "up and coming" and into "affluent". You'll note that both listings spend more time talking about the lot size rather than the house itself, and the second one references construction of a laneway house. Here's a link for the current freehold houses around the first one: link Here's a link for the current freehold houses around the second one: link Here also is a streetview for the second one: http://goo.gl/maps/M3yFw As you can see, both of those are on the low end of the price range for similar lots in the relevant neighborhoods, and for the second one in particular, it's clearly a teardown relative to the neighborhood houses, none of which are for sale currently for a direct comparison. e: Also, "poor" is a very different thing than "reasonable". Poor people aren't going to be buying a house no matter where they live. North Van in particular has lots of options at fairly reasonable rates per square foot. If you don't like the prices in Lower Lonsdale for example just go north and/or east a ways and the prices get much better. I should note that I'm looking for a family home so less interested in condo prices atm. Kalenn Istarion fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Confirming Toronto cabbies are all assholes. At least in Vancouver they'll take your credit card without making a face. In Toronto there's this culture of making you feel guilty if you dare to make them take out their credit card machine.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
In the UK, at least they don't falsely advertise that they'll take cards. The Toronto guys will straight up lie to your face. I've also had my card number stolen by taxis more times in Toronto than anywhere else.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Some unsolicited advice: For Christ's sake man, if you're just about to graduate with a valuable degree - give your head a shake and forget about loving real estate in Canada for 5-10 years at least. Go and live somewhere cool, travel a bunch, start a company - whatever. Don't waste your youth worrying about owning and then working to pay off an overpriced bung in Saanich. Kids these days... I deeply regret not doing more of this when I was younger and would highly recommend anyone just finishing school to go gently caress around for a while before worrying about home ownership and similar bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:BC/Vancouver goons, what are people's thoughts on cooperative housing? I'm still just renting right now but down the road it seems like a good model as an alternative to owning. Co-op housing is definitely an alternative to owning a condo (closest comparable), but you need to very carefully consider the benefits and risks. Key issues that I'm aware of are that the ownership structure (essentially buying a share in the corp that owns the building) does not have the same security as direct ownership of the strata unit. For this reason, it is much harder to find banks that will lend against it, and if they do, you will usually get a much lower leverage rate. I have a friend who owns one and was only able to get 70% leverage (meaning 30% down). The co-op structure also means it can be much harder to enforce your rights as owner should the co-op decide to do something that is detrimental to your property value. That's about the limit of my knowledge but everything I've seen has made me uncomfortable with the idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:What about Co-op structures that don't necessarily require lending? There's one near me that simply has a one-time share purchase of $2,700 for a 2BDR+Den stacked and a monthly fee $1,270. This type has you with your own kitchen and bathroom, but shared laundry etc. Ownership of the house is run by democratic processes, and this particular cooperative has a philosophy of donating x number of hours per month to do maintenance, while voting on larger projects by committee. That doesn't sound like ownership to me, it sounds like some sort of community-oriented rental arrangement. I'd take a close look at the agreement; I doubt from your description that you are getting any claim to the underlying property and would be out on your rear end should the ultimate owner decide to sell. Look at what rights you would have should someone in the co-op choose not to take up their share of the maintenance duties or fails to pay their own rent or whatever it is. Would other members be on the hook? What happens when you move out? Do you get some of the funds back? If not, who keeps them? What is the initial larger payment for? These are some of the questions I would have.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:To (I think) answer your question, I don't think you purchase ownership of the underlying property, but you are technically purchasing a share into the Co-operative Association that owns the property. This wasn't a question - in a co-op like the one my friend is invested in, you buy a share from the previous owner, which operates like a share in a corp which owns the property. The one you're considering doesn't really sound like that though - it sounds more like you're paying a membership fee for your spot in the place and wouldn't even have the same rights as my friend would have in his co-op.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I only point that out for the sake of limiting confusion. Your point is otherwise well taken - the realtor cartel engages in equally disingenuous bullshit here also. Oddly, in both cases it seems, people actually listen to them. The same respect is not afforded to car salesmen - a functionally similar profession. It's not really the same thing - in the case of a used car salesman, he likely has a direct interest in the sale of the specific car he's sitting on, while a realtor is incented to transact on any property. Thus, the realtor should be incented to show you the properties you're most likely to transact on so that he gets paid. This isn't to say that there aren't disingenuous shills out there, but to blight the whole profession is a bit unfair. I've personally had an excellent experience with the realtor that I've used for years.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
That's fair too. Any person in sales has a bias to get you to transact as that's how they get paid. As long as you keep that in mind, and are careful in selecting your broker, you should be fine. One thing to watch out for is a broker that has a lot of sell-side listings. They're going to have a hard-to-ignore incentive to show you their own listings as they essentially get paid twice on them, however, their code of ethics requires that if they are doing this they give you the option to select another broker to act on your behalf, regardless of any timed exclusivity agreement you might sign (this is something many buy-side brokers will ask for to give a clear time window for them to search for you).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Saltin posted:Never sign a buyer representation agreement ever. They are of absolutely no benefit to the buyer. If the buyer agent insists on one, keep looking for a good buyer agent. Agree that if you can find a broker who will work hard for you without one then you are better off. That said, I disagree that they're of no benefit, as a broker with a rep agreement will arguably be a lot more incented to do a lot of work for you as he knows you're not going to take a house he found and go to your buddy down the street after he's done all the work. Assuming you're not a deadbeat, being on the hook for your own negligence shouldn't be of concern.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Saltin posted:You're also on the hook for the vendor's (selling agent's) negligence. Maybe you can get a BRA without that clause, I've never seen one. http://www.torontorealestateboard.com/buying/plain_language_forms/pdf/300_2010_PL.pdf That's not actually what it says - you're on the hook for the fee if your negligence causes the transaction to fail, but negligence on the part of the seller causing the transaction to fail is a whole different game and doesn't really seem to be covered. The language in the agreement linked above basically just states that you have to pay your broker a commission if it's not otherwise provided for. Since the vast majority of listings include coverage of buyers' fees then this is a non-issue. You're basically agreeing to pay commish to your broker should you end up buying a private listing that he finds for you, which seems to me to be fair. It's ultimately irrelevant because if a broker went around trying to enforce buyers' fees on blown deals in this manner no-one would ever use that broker again.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Saltin posted:I didn't mention anything about the seller being negligent. Saltin posted:You're also on the hook for the vendor's (selling agent's) negligence. Maybe you can get a BRA without that clause, I've never seen one. The term vendor generally means the actual seller (with their agent included elsewhere), so that's how I interpreted your comment. While the wording could be interpreted the way you note, any broker that did this wouldn't have clients for very long - they're much more likely to go after the selling broker that failed to pay the fees.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Maybe they just really like futons. Final comment re: BRA - I don't think they're ideal, but I also don't think they're horrible as long as you're eyes wide open entering into one and don't have a slimy broker.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Honestly, the condos aren't getting built because of razor thin margins. They're getting built because the margins are far better for developers than anything else they can do with their time. They're usually structured so that the dev breaks even with only a 70% sales rate or so, sometimes less. And the trend towards ludicrously small units in Toronto only helps them. The people most likely to get screwed in the new deva is the initial buyer, particularly those who bought on spec rather than an intention to live there. The first condos to go into the dumpster will be the new over-priced ones, while the older ones with reasonable sizes and less spec owners will hold up reasonably well, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Whiteycar posted:CDIC covers 100 K in checking/savings and GIC's Per institution... So if you had 3 accounts at a total of 2 banks you'd be covered to the tune of $200,000 total. E: gently caress you, phone Kalenn Istarion fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Feb 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Check your zoning bylaws though, some regressive places demand a minimum of off-street ENCLOSED parking. There was a lady in a snooty suburb of Victoria that made a bedroom for her disabled child in the garage (level entry) and the city flipped out and demanded she return it to a garage. And then kill yourself when your kid gets stuck up there during an actual fire and burns to death. The garage thing is dumb, but I would generally draw the line at ignoring any safety regulations. Among other things it could potentially make you liable should some LATER owner of the house have something go wrong in the space you illegally modified. Kraftwerk posted:Maybe you guys can help me. Im in my mid 20s and I commute into Toronto every day via the 401. I want to shorten my commute or decrease the hassle. How much should I be paying in rent for Toronto at 45k per year? What area should I be living in? Im seeing all these really old rickety apartments going for 1300+. Its ridiculous. Where in Toronto do you commute to? That could make a difference on what areas make sense. If it's downtown, you're probably SOL. Anything that's got sufficient infrastructure access (read subway or streetcar) is going to really strain that salary level. You can probably afford something off a subway line but then you're not really saving time, just the headache of driving yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I work very close to Fairview mall and commute in from Milton. Well, that's not so bad as trying to get to downtown. Here's what I would do: - figure out what you pay each month in gas - decide whether you can ditch your car entirely based on living on a subway line or sufficiently dense neighborhood, if yes, add monthly car payments to gas estimate - subtract cost of monthly subway pass - add this to what you currently pay in rent (e: or would pay to rent a similar unit in Milton) This gives you your basic rent-equivalent. It might seem quite a bit higher than what you're paying but carries soft trade-offs that you need to decide whether you're comfortable with. The biggest one is that even if you end up with a similar commute time, you're spending your time reading on the subway or bus or whatever rather than trying not to fall asleep and/or kill yourself on the 401. As Lexicon noted, this has an immense amount of value. You'd be surprised how much reading etc you can get done on the subway or streetcar. Assuming you sell your car, the biggest loss is the utility of having a car on the weekend, but you can address this by using one of the car-sharing services or car rentals. If you think this will be a regular thing then you can subtract the cost of a car share service from the amount above to account for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
ductonius posted:If your investment returns are more than the interest on your mortgage it's better to keep them, rather than pay cash for the house. Don't forget tax impact. If 5% is an after-tax return this is correct, but if it's a before tax return the line is closer, depending on how the return is characterized. However, the argument above doesn't take into account risk v. reward. By paying off your mortgage you're essentially increasing your investment in real estate, but, this particular investment has a guaranteed return of your mortgage rate (this is comparable to after tax in Canada since it's not deductible), so you need to have a view that your investment alternative has a risk-adjusted return which is better than that. Before someone has a fit that you're actually getting your expected total return on the property and not your mortgage rate, that's not true as you're already entitled to all of your return less the mortgage rate, as you've already made the ownership decision and so the return there is irrelevant. By paying your mortgage you're just buying the portion of your return which would otherwise go to the bank. This is why it can be seen as essentially risk free from your perspective (unless you're willing to go bankrupt!). To be clear, this is not me saying real estate is risk free - only that paying your mortgage is once you've made the decision to have one. Using the example above, if you put a $1000 payment into your mortgage, you are guaranteed to be better off by 3.75%, while buying a stock that returns 5% leaves you with the risk that it returns 0% or -10% (or +10%, whatever). The takeaway is that you should ultimately do what your own risk tolerance makes you comfortable with. If you're comfortable with a relatively riskier 5% (or 6% or whatever) return then you should keep your money invested, but if you feel like having a larger mortgage will make you uncomfortable, then paying your mortgage is a totally viable option. e: the arguments about liquidity / mobility of the house are only partially applicable - if you go upside-down on your mortgage your other assets are at risk anyways unless they're in registered accounts in which case you couldn't use them for this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Kalenn covered this implicitly to some extent, but don't forget tax implications of your TFSA/RRSP contributions. Shovelling every last nickel into your mortgage potentially means you're foregoing many years of tax-free growth and/or reduced taxable income. It's potentially far higher than a foregone 6% return viewed in that light. That would depend on your specific income situation of course. Appreciate the nod but I actually missed/forgot this and agree, to the extent you had RRSP contribution room (or TFSA), you should really consider maxing these out first. If nothing else, you get 20-45% of your RRSP investments back on your tax return (depending on your tax bracket) so in Arabidopsis' $100,000 case, they could put (hypothetically) $25K in an RRSP and still have $80+K to put into the downpayment. TFSA doesn't give you the up-front tax savings meaning it's a direct reduction in your downpayment, but the tax free status basically means you can take your before-tax earnings of your investments for the purpose of comparing with the mortgage rate when deciding on the trade-off. Sounds like Arabidopsis' investment profile is biased to lower risk and return so the TFSA might be marginal as a trade-off against incremental mortgage. For someone with a riskier and higher returning investment profile, the trade-off will be weighted more heavily towards the TFSA and keeping a larger mortgage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
I've always preferred to have my place in a building with more older people than not. If I want to party I can go to the social districts, but when I'm at home I don't want my entryway to smell like stale beer and/or have homeless drunks sleeping on it. Re: Winnipeg, don't ever go there it's awful and pointless.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Rime posted:I suppose that since Toronto is building more towers than anywhere on the planet right now, the bulk of those units just aren't available on the market yet? Is this actually true? Last time I was in Hong Kong there was an absolutely retarded number of units going up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Here's the relevant quote from the Globe and Mail: Not necessarily. There's lots of money that comes here to buy houses without going to the trouble of immigrating. House-buying tours are still a thing: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/h...?service=mobile
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Is power super expensive in Ontario? $60 a month??? I'm in a bigger unit and it's about $50 every 2 months. Depends on a) your local utility's rate rules (Toronto has a stepped rate similar to Vancouver), b) electric vs. some other form of heat. My townhouse in Vancouver (which I rent) has floor heating and electric wall heaters with a central gas fireplace. We run the fireplace hot (23.5 degrees) to try to limit how much the heaters run but we still get into the $200 range in the winter due to Vancouver's rate step above a fairly low use cap. I like my place warmer than most though. We could probably save a lot by setting the electric thermostats a degree or so lower than we do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've got free hot water/heat, so that explains the extra cost. Well, it's not free as it will be baked into whatever rent or condo fees you pay, but that would definitely account for a big part of the difference.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Huge price spikes in Toronto housing prices are startling economists. quote:Toronto's Rosedale neighbourhood, one of the wealthiest areas of the city, has seen house prices more than double in the past two years. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Their banks and financial sector Fixed
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
etalian posted:Just look at the US system for a classic example of moral hazard, on bright side is the banks and CMHC have better rainy day funds if something bad happens, while US leviathans like Goldman Sachs were over leveraged 32:1. While I agree that it looks scary on its face, this is honestly hard to interpret without comparison to previous years' versions of the forward looking charts. For example, if the market has historically reported expectations of builds well above actual builds, then this doesn't mean that much. It's actually very common for industries like this to look potentially oversupplied but not actually become so. For example, in the mining sector, if you looked at copper mine supply forecasts in say 2008, you might have reasonably concluded that copper would become oversupplied on the basis of in construction + planned projects through 2013. However, the changing economic situation as well as the vagaries of large project construction resulted in a huge number of these projects being deferred or cancelled and we continue to be in a relatively balanced market. E: the dramatic decline is also not surprising given the construction cycle for a condo. If they only take 2-3 years to build, there's no reason to expect visibility on 2018 builds yet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Linkletter posted:You are misinterpreting the chart. It's the number of units scheduled to be completed, not projected to be completed. No, I'm not misinterpreting. A schedule is a projection. Invariably, some of the units scheduled for 2014/2015 will be deferred or cancelled. Without knowing the historical rate of this happening (ie, does the scheduled number always come in significantly higher than actual builds in a year), the scheduled builds for 2014 vs actual for 2013 is a less meaningful comparison. Looking back to copper mine builds (numbers are made up because I can't be arsed to dig up the specifics right now), in 2008 the scheduled 2009 builds were 10 million tons of new capacity. Actual capacity built in 2009 was 8 million tons. In 2009, scheduled builds for 2010 were 11 million tons, including deferred 2009 builds, while actual builds in 2010 came in at 8.5 million tons, and so on. My point is that in markets like this with large, long gestation projects, a build can be sped up or more commonly slowed down while in progress should the builder need to respond to market conditions. Without knowing the historical propensity of condo builders to over-estimate their build completion rates, it's hard to conclude that the chart is bad, only that the forecast for this year is higher than historical actuals... Which might be perfectly normal. Hopefully that makes sense. E: I guess what I'm saying is that chart would be much more meaningful if it showed a given year's scheduled builds, as of the prior year, in a dashed box above the actuals. Kalenn Istarion fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Linkletter posted:No, it is not. A projection is partially based on scheduled numbers, but the similarity ends there. I could argue this further, but I won't as it's not relevant to the thread. Definition aside, my point about comparison of the numbers stands.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
Cash-out refinancings are very doable in Canada. All you need is an appraisal showing the new value of the home and a willingness to (at least threaten to) go to a new bank. Banks continue to have a hard-on for adding mortgages to their balance sheet. Spreads for them are not bad right now in spite of the low mortgage rates on offer. I'm not suggesting that this is a thing that people should do as an individual, but it is possible to do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
HipGnosis posted:Yeah, speaking of which, can you get stuck with a relative's consumer debt if she dies? This probably fits in the Canadian finance thread better, but unless you're somehow a co-creditor on the loans you aren't directly liable. If they have other assets in their estate then depending on the terms of the loan these could be seized and sold, potentially for well less than fair value, meaning you would be indirectly out of pocket. Disclaimer: I am not an estate lawyer and if this is a real concern for you you should probably talk to one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
There will however be lots of wood for raft-making once they have to tear down all the '60s-era wood-frame condos.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
On the downside, it then requires you to live in Winterpeg.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:
Everyone knows the Silver Bullet!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
On mortgage insurance, the cmhc's exposure is well below the full value of the mortgage, and a $1mm mortgage is silly to use as a base value anyways. They only pay to the extent that the bank is unable to fully recover. In the worst case, where a place goes upside-down immediately after purchase, this is probably only going to up 10-15% of the mortgage value ( not house value). I don't know the average nationwide property value but say it's $300,000. Disregarding impact of high-value properties which would drag average up as someone noted they're not insurance anyways. The mortgage insurer covering te difference between a (say) 90% average mortgages value and a fire sale price at say 80% of purchase price (the assumption baked into a regular uninsured mortgage), cmhc is only exposed on $30,000 per mortgage, on average. This means that to take out $1.6bn of profits (annualized from $1.2bn) you actually need 50,000 mortgages to go upside down very early in their amortization life. I sont think the cmhc is breaking any time soon, and these numbers eve disregard that genworth and whatever the other company is also have decent market share.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
EngineerJoe posted:What if we had a US style meltdown that resulted in much greater losses? I don't think we will - most of the Canadian market's problems seem to be focused on a few key markets rather than systemic. My opinion fwiw. If we did, the comparison vs a year's profits is ultimately not realistic. The CMHC has had years to build reserves, and insurance profit estimates should be net of actuarial loss estimates, so the funds in the door are likely much higher than the profit number. Governments do funny things with reporting though so not sure if they're mislabelling what is actually revenue here. A systemic failure will be underestimated by actuarial estimates but the reserves built up will help cushion the blow substantially.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
They also say a 10-20% real drop (inferred to be versus nominal). Incorporating 2% inflation over the 5-year period means we could see nominal movements of anywhere from 0 to -10%. If it's the former, there will be a lot of idiots that don't see a correction at all (because I didn't lose anything amirite). That said, a housing correction has been predicted on and off at various times by many different observers, and none of them have been right yet. These guys are more credible than some but they may also have a vested interest due to short interest in CMBOs or other securities and seeking to generate a favourable movement. Any time someone whose primary job is to make money from the market says something directional I take it with a very large grain of salt. What's the forecast history of the people quoted in the article? Are they historically bearish or bullish? How is PIMCO invested in the housing market and how might they benefit from a correction? A few things to ask before taking their commentary at face value.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:This is, of course, exceedingly wise as a general principle. My favourite is Eric Sprott's bull calls on gold. He still gets BNN airtime for this which just blows my mind. He's probably one of he largest single holder of gold stocks in Canada, so he's got his money where his mouth is but you can hardly call his pumping altruistic and objective.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
That's like paying someone $25,000 for a realtalk sit-down with Bubbles. Bubbles would probably have more useful policy ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 08:10
|
|