Jump to content

A permanently high plateau for profit margins?


Cigarbutt
 Share

Recommended Posts

I’m (slowly) working on a few specific investment posts but keep coming across this question when fishing the bottom sea.

 

An argument could be made in favor of a permanently higher plateau for profit margins. Perhaps I need to be educated here cause I think it is mean reverting and, obviously, the implications are very real. Irving Fisher almost last words had to do with « a permanently high plateau ». We know how that ended. Our mentor, Mr. Warren Buffett has made pretty definite comments about this a few years ago (see link below), but I gather that he may have changed his mind on this?

http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-profit-margins-1999-2014-3

 

Recently, respected sources (like the Semper Augustus letter) have tried to define a rational behind this new paradigm. Many pundits support that hypothesis (on premisses of lower interest rates, lower effective taxes, more mature economy, modern Great Moderation macro achievements etc)…

When I hear about new areas, I fret. So perhaps, I need to be educated here.

Any thoughts?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't put much weight into the argument about mean reversion.  The make up of the economy, and stock market in particular, is shifting.  We have moved from primarily industrials (capital intensive) in the 20th century to things like software (non capital intensive).  We are also further along in regards to financial wisdom in terms of returns on capital.  Obviously profit margins can only go so high, and economic theory tells us high profits bring in competition, but there is no reason they must revert to the historical mean either.  They could remain a bit higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we living through times where aggregate reported profits are higher than true profits? As a result of the primacy of the income statement versus the balance sheet.  This has been going on for well over two decades, imo.  There was an academic study done during the go-go 90's which showed that companies overwhelmingly reported earnings "beating by a penny or two" over "missed by a penny or two". One famous analyst line about Cisco missing by a couple of pennies for the first time ever was "damn, couldn't they come up with a lousy penny"; Of course what followed was the miss in billions. In my own experience in a public company, there is a huge incentive cause bias that supports this. We had a 70 to 80% cliff for making the income number. The rest of it was all else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good article. I'm too lazy to create a WP account to ask the author the following question, but I'll throw it out here:

So in winner-takes-all economy competitors cannot destroy the margins of AAPL/FB/MSFT/GOOGL. But that does not prevent competitors from trying. And when AAPL/FB/MSFT/GOOGL invest into trying to capture the market of FB/MSFT/GOOGL/AAPL, doesn't that drop their margins, since they can't win and they are just throwing money into the wind?

 

I guess the answer could be that they spend only a small percentage of money trying to break into another winner's market. But is that really true? Didn't Google spend a lot on G+?

Another answer could be that their winner margins pre-attacks-on-other-winners are so high that even the money wasted does not lower margins to past averages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we living through times where aggregate reported profits are higher than true profits? As a result of the primacy of the income statement versus the balance sheet.  This has been going on for well over two decades, imo.  There was an academic study done during the go-go 90's which showed that companies overwhelmingly reported earnings "beating by a penny or two" over "missed by a penny or two". One famous analyst line about Cisco missing by a couple of pennies for the first time ever was "damn, couldn't they come up with a lousy penny"; Of course what followed was the miss in billions. In my own experience in a public company, there is a huge incentive cause bias that supports this. We had a 70 to 80% cliff for making the income number. The rest of it was all else.

 

I mean, at some point the chickens come home to roost. Eventually either the accounting winds down or your accountant becomes complicit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good article. I'm too lazy to create a WP account to ask the author the following question, but I'll throw it out here:

So in winner-takes-all economy competitors cannot destroy the margins of AAPL/FB/MSFT/GOOGL. But that does not prevent competitors from trying. And when AAPL/FB/MSFT/GOOGL invest into trying to capture the market of FB/MSFT/GOOGL/AAPL, doesn't that drop their margins, since they can't win and they are just throwing money into the wind?

 

I guess the answer could be that they spend only a small percentage of money trying to break into another winner's market. But is that really true? Didn't Google spend a lot on G+?

Another answer could be that their winner margins pre-attacks-on-other-winners are so high that even the money wasted does not lower margins to past averages.

 

I'd also add that what these companies are dominant in is not what drives revenue. Facebook is dominant in social networking - but it's not social networking that drives revenues. It's advertising. Google dominates search. But search doesn't drive revenues. It's advertising.

 

So while both Google and Facebook dominate their respective fields, they're still both in competition with each other for online ad dollars and I imagine that the price they charge for those ads is very much determinant on what others are charging for a similar quality product (similarly targeted, effective, etc.). They may dominant in their freely available products, but they are NOT dominant in the product they charge for.

 

I also struggle with the winner take all argument...naturally, it is supported that we are in a winner take all environment with his chart of the top 20% and bottom 20%. But shouldn't the losses of the bottom 20% offset a large portion of the additional gains by the top 20% thereby neutralizing the impact on margins in aggregate? We'd have to see a revenue weighted chart to be sure, but I don't immediately buy that firms in the top 20% are carrying the whole index while ignoring the drag from the bottom 20%.

 

My expectation that the main factor has been those mentioned in the article - lower interest rates allowing greater financing by debt which is tax efficient, increases leverage, and came at no additional carrying cost as rates fell and more debt could be rolled at lower and lower rates. Pair this with the limited ability for workers to demand higher wages in a stagnating economy and you get corporations that were able to maximize leverage to increase revenues while keeping a fairly flat cost structure while globalization allowed them to grow revenues elsewhere even as the U.S. stagnated. Revenues go up and cost structure remains flat = higher margins.

 

So, what happens in a rising rate environment. Corporations are forced to roll record debt levels at higher and higher rates increasing the carrying impacting the bottom line. They'll also be issuing less debt and likely cutting CapEx as they are forced to pair down leverage to service the higher debt cost instead of borrowing to invest in growth. Negative impact to the bottom line is medium term as maturities roll to higher cost and the negative impact to the top line is a bit longer term as corporate investment is cut in favor of pairing down leverage to maintain the bottom line.

 

Further, in a rising rate environment (a symptom of inflation), you'd expect the labor market to be tighter and for employees to have more job mobility and negotiating leverage to push pay up. So the corporate cost structure would rise for overhead as well also negatively impacting the bottom line and providing a higher bar for additional investment/growth.

 

I really think the elevated margins of today are simply a symptom of the 30 year bull market in rates and the stagnation of the U.S. economy since 2000. I don't expect the economy to remain stagnated forever nor do I expect interest rates to remain in a perpetual decline so I would argue that margins will meaningfully revert when one or both of the reverse trends takes place.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good article. I'm too lazy to create a WP account to ask the author the following question, but I'll throw it out here:

So in winner-takes-all economy competitors cannot destroy the margins of AAPL/FB/MSFT/GOOGL. But that does not prevent competitors from trying. And when AAPL/FB/MSFT/GOOGL invest into trying to capture the market of FB/MSFT/GOOGL/AAPL, doesn't that drop their margins, since they can't win and they are just throwing money into the wind?

 

I guess the answer could be that they spend only a small percentage of money trying to break into another winner's market. But is that really true? Didn't Google spend a lot on G+?

Another answer could be that their winner margins pre-attacks-on-other-winners are so high that even the money wasted does not lower margins to past averages.

 

I'd also add that what these companies are dominant in is not what drives revenue. Facebook is dominant in social networking - but it's not social networking that drives revenues. It's advertising. Google dominates search. But search doesn't drive revenues. It's advertising.

 

So while both Google and Facebook dominate their respective fields, they're still both in competition with each other for online ad dollars and I imagine that the price they charge for those ads is very much determinant on what others are charging for a similar quality product (similarly targeted, effective, etc.). They may dominant in their freely available products, but they are NOT dominant in the product they charge for.

 

I also struggle with the winner take all argument...naturally, it is supported that we are in a winner take all environment with his chart of the top 20% and bottom 20%. But shouldn't the losses of the bottom 20% offset a large portion of the additional gains by the top 20% thereby neutralizing the impact on margins in aggregate? We'd have to see a revenue weighted chart to be sure, but I don't immediately buy that firms in the top 20% are carrying the whole index while ignoring the drag from the bottom 20%.

 

My expectation that the main factor has been those mentioned in the article - lower interest rates allowing greater financing by debt which is tax efficient, increases leverage, and came at no additional carrying cost as rates fell and more debt could be rolled at lower and lower rates. Pair this with the limited ability for workers to demand higher wages in a stagnating economy and you get corporations that were able to maximize leverage to increase revenues while keeping a fairly flat cost structure while globalization allowed them to grow revenues elsewhere even as the U.S. stagnated. Revenues go up and cost structure remains flat = higher margins.

 

So, what happens in a rising rate environment. Corporations are forced to roll record debt levels at higher and higher rates increasing the carrying impacting the bottom line. They'll also be issuing less debt and likely cutting CapEx as they are forced to pair down leverage to service the higher debt cost instead of borrowing to invest in growth. Negative impact to the bottom line is medium term as maturities roll to higher cost and the negative impact to the top line is a bit longer term as corporate investment is cut in favor of pairing down leverage to maintain the bottom line.

 

Further, in a rising rate environment (a symptom of inflation), you'd expect the labor market to be tighter and for employees to have more job mobility and negotiating leverage to push pay up. So the corporate cost structure would rise for overhead as well also negatively impacting the bottom line and providing a higher bar for additional investment/growth.

 

I really think the elevated margins of today are simply a symptom of the 30 year bull market in rates and the stagnation of the U.S. economy since 2000. I don't expect the economy to remain stagnated forever nor do I expect interest rates to remain in a perpetual decline so I would argue that margins will meaningfully revert when one or both of the reverse trends takes place.

 

 

 

 

Really well articulated Twocities. 

 

I can only add that in a major prolonged recession ad revenues will crash.

 

There is also the honey pot effect. 

a) With a stroke of the pen major governments around the world could eliminate tax deductibility on interest payments.  As we know, most world governments are a little cash strapped right now. 

they could target, or regulate the honey pot at any time to get more money out of it. 

b) The cheapening of computing power across the board can damage all of these companies.  Why google if you can download and store the entirety of the internet in your closet.  Alot safer and more secure.  You could update it every few weeks, and never have to watch another you tube ad again. 

 

Then there is cybersecurity, privacy, and a whole host of associated issues.  If governments start harassing people due to their online life then we can kiss FB, Google, and every other linked network company goodbye.  Apple was very cognizant of this during that fight with the US government a couple of years ago over unlocking the alleged terrorists phone.  If they unlocked that phone for the Feds every single company in that space would have had its stock and profit margins crushed. 

 

Then there is the amazon effect causing a race to the bottom in the pricing of everything.  Why would data, search, communication services, social media, or anything else be immune to this effect? 

 

I think what you are seeing right now is a confluence of events that have temporarily driven profit margins very high in some industries.  This too shall pass.  So many things could happen. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also struggle with the winner take all argument...naturally, it is supported that we are in a winner take all environment with his chart of the top 20% and bottom 20%. But shouldn't the losses of the bottom 20% offset a large portion of the additional gains by the top 20% thereby neutralizing the impact on margins in aggregate? We'd have to see a revenue weighted chart to be sure, but I don't immediately buy that firms in the top 20% are carrying the whole index while ignoring the drag from the bottom 20%.

 

My expectation that the main factor has been those mentioned in the article - lower interest rates allowing greater financing by debt which is tax efficient, increases leverage, and came at no additional carrying cost as rates fell and more debt could be rolled at lower and lower rates. Pair this with the limited ability for workers to demand higher wages in a stagnating economy and you get corporations that were able to maximize leverage to increase revenues while keeping a fairly flat cost structure while globalization allowed them to grow revenues elsewhere even as the U.S. stagnated. Revenues go up and cost structure remains flat = higher margins.

 

So, what happens in a rising rate environment. Corporations are forced to roll record debt levels at higher and higher rates increasing the carrying impacting the bottom line. They'll also be issuing less debt and likely cutting CapEx as they are forced to pair down leverage to service the higher debt cost instead of borrowing to invest in growth. Negative impact to the bottom line is medium term as maturities roll to higher cost and the negative impact to the top line is a bit longer term as corporate investment is cut in favor of pairing down leverage to maintain the bottom line.

 

I think the dominant factor is the increase in number and size of competitively advantaged companies.

 

If there were no competitively advantaged firms, lower interest rates would not have much impact on profit margins, because they would be competed away and the benefits passed on to consumers. Think retailers as an example.

 

Profit margins have been high even before the 2008 crisis, when the economy is robust and employment levels are very high. So your argument that a stagnating economy leading to employees not demanding high wages contributing to higher margins does not hold water.

 

Vinod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made the argument about profit margins a while ago. But I thought about it a while and read Philosophical economics and I came to realize that its not profit margins that are mean reverting. Its Return on Equity. Or more generally return on assets...since return on equity has a strong dependence on debt.

 

I'll give an example to illustrate what I mean. Take Microsoft...its profit margins are humongous. And they aren't going down. They have not mean reverted for decades. However due to the high profit margin, Microsoft accumulates tremendous amounts of cash. But they have no real place in which to invest that cash. And so their return on equity tends to go down over time. Apple is in the same situation.

 

In general returns on equity will tend to mean revert. Of course its possible companies just return the cash to shareholders and the cash get used to bid up asset prices. But I don't think that process can occur forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made the argument about profit margins a while ago. But I thought about it a while and read Philosophical economics and I came to realize that its not profit margins that are mean reverting. Its Return on Equity. Or more generally return on assets...since return on equity has a strong dependence on debt.

 

I'll give an example to illustrate what I mean. Take Microsoft...its profit margins are humongous. And they aren't going down. They have not mean reverted for decades. However due to the high profit margin, Microsoft accumulates tremendous amounts of cash. But they have no real place in which to invest that cash. And so their return on equity tends to go down over time. Apple is in the same situation.

 

In general returns on equity will tend to mean revert. Of course its possible companies just return the cash to shareholders and the cash get used to bid up asset prices. But I don't think that process can occur forever.

 

Good stuff.  Returns on capital even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Good links too.

In the past, J. Grantham, J. Montier and J. Hussmann have also produced interesting work on this issue.

At the aggregate level, there are many moving variables and the link of profit margins may be just a correlation through the Dupont ROE decomposition. The chicken or the egg?

I still think though that profit margins are cyclical and present levels don't appear to be sustainable long term, but perhaps we should not hold our breath. I agree that unusually low (suppressed?) interest rates play a fundamental role linking much higher debt/leverage and still lower interest payments on that debt. Despite the apparent dynamism of some sectors (FANGs and others), I submit that we need more competition driven creative destruction. Of course, you don't always get what you need.

What's the implication for stock picking?

From my perspective, I usually use a long term view with normalized earnings that take into account a more normal competitive landscape in the specific industry where the index firm is operating. By doing so right now, a lot of investment candidates simply become too expensive. I then tend to pass. Missed opportunities maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also struggle with the winner take all argument...naturally, it is supported that we are in a winner take all environment with his chart of the top 20% and bottom 20%. But shouldn't the losses of the bottom 20% offset a large portion of the additional gains by the top 20% thereby neutralizing the impact on margins in aggregate? We'd have to see a revenue weighted chart to be sure, but I don't immediately buy that firms in the top 20% are carrying the whole index while ignoring the drag from the bottom 20%.

 

My expectation that the main factor has been those mentioned in the article - lower interest rates allowing greater financing by debt which is tax efficient, increases leverage, and came at no additional carrying cost as rates fell and more debt could be rolled at lower and lower rates. Pair this with the limited ability for workers to demand higher wages in a stagnating economy and you get corporations that were able to maximize leverage to increase revenues while keeping a fairly flat cost structure while globalization allowed them to grow revenues elsewhere even as the U.S. stagnated. Revenues go up and cost structure remains flat = higher margins.

 

So, what happens in a rising rate environment. Corporations are forced to roll record debt levels at higher and higher rates increasing the carrying impacting the bottom line. They'll also be issuing less debt and likely cutting CapEx as they are forced to pair down leverage to service the higher debt cost instead of borrowing to invest in growth. Negative impact to the bottom line is medium term as maturities roll to higher cost and the negative impact to the top line is a bit longer term as corporate investment is cut in favor of pairing down leverage to maintain the bottom line.

 

I think the dominant factor is the increase in number and size of competitively advantaged companies.

 

If there were no competitively advantaged firms, lower interest rates would not have much impact on profit margins, because they would be competed away and the benefits passed on to consumers. Think retailers as an example.

 

Profit margins have been high even before the 2008 crisis, when the economy is robust and employment levels are very high. So your argument that a stagnating economy leading to employees not demanding high wages contributing to higher margins does not hold water.

 

Vinod

 

Inflation adjusted wages are flat-to-down since 2000. An economy at full employment where every individual earns 50% of what they used to might represent "robust employment" but would still qualify as stagnation.

 

We have had an economy where "robust employment" has fluctuated up and down over the past 17 years, but real wages remain below their 2000 peak.

That is stagnation.

 

 

Edit: A minor correction. Just checked the hard data - real wages have grown. 2015 matched the 2000 peak and 2016 was 2.6% above the 2000 peak. So in 16 years, real wages grew 2.6%, or 0.16% annually. I think that still qualifies as stagnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m (slowly) working on a few specific investment posts but keep coming across this question when fishing the bottom sea.

 

An argument could be made in favor of a permanently higher plateau for profit margins. Perhaps I need to be educated here cause I think it is mean reverting and, obviously, the implications are very real. Irving Fisher almost last words had to do with « a permanently high plateau ». We know how that ended. Our mentor, Mr. Warren Buffett has made pretty definite comments about this a few years ago (see link below), but I gather that he may have changed his mind on this?

http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-profit-margins-1999-2014-3

 

Recently, respected sources (like the Semper Augustus letter) have tried to define a rational behind this new paradigm. Many pundits support that hypothesis (on premisses of lower interest rates, lower effective taxes, more mature economy, modern Great Moderation macro achievements etc)…

When I hear about new areas, I fret. So perhaps, I need to be educated here.

Any thoughts?

 

Here is a good data source on corporate profits after tax/ GDP

It is roughly similar to the 1st chart in the Business insider article.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cSh

 

I think the main reason may be foreign profits becoming larger as a % of corporate profits. 

I am a bit unclear on some definitions though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to move away from these macro questions but the recent letter by Mr. Bill Gross sways me back to this "problem" with "generationally" high margins.

https://www.janus.com/insights/bill-gross-investment-outlook/archive-page

What is going on here?

Concerning the stagnation concept versus more dominant players around notion, I would tend to side with the stagnation mindset as we are going through an amazingly weak recovery despite unprecedented monetary stimulus that just does not seem to get transmitted to the real economy.

I prefer to look at companies at the micro level but there may be an interesting parallel to be made here with real implication for the individual value investors. There are typical stages for a firm. When a firm reaches maturity, it will normally "stagnate" in terms of growth but, despite this, will, initially in that phase, maintain its margins. What is expected after is a collapse BEFORE a new phase. At the aggregate level, since the "recovery" after 2008-9, asset utilization has disconnected (down) from profit margins. see end of document, fig.25 p.13:http://www.yardeni.com/pub/ppphb.pdf

This disconnect, I think, point to inflated aggregate margins due to unusually low interest rates and a net declining trend for effective tax rates in the US. Some may refer to this state as a zombie economy. Mr Dimon refers to animal spirits being back in the game. I would submit that this awakening is not likely to come durably from promised lower corporate taxation.

My take is that our economy may have reached some kind of maturity. Who knows what comes next? Maybe creative destruction will do its magic. Let's not forget though that destruction is sometimes painful.  I certainly don't hope for a deep recession but downturns represent opportunities to move with a cleaner slate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it makes sense to compare operating or net margins across decades. The issue of comparing net margins is obvious, effective tax rates have changed over time. While the federal corp rate has been fairly stable, the % of foreign profits distorts comparisons  since they are taxed at < 50% of the US rate and they allow a meaningful amount of US profits to be reported overseas. I also don't think it makes sense to compare operating margins since there was a huge uptick in federal grants/subsidies, major accounting changes, increased industry concentration, and a noticeable decline in anti-trust enforcement over the last 20-50 years. There is also the outsourcing of numerous jobs that was only possible because of computers and the internet, which lowers SG&A, all else held constant. I'm sure there are many other differences between 1977 and 2017 that I can't think of that benefit companies operating today on a net basis. There has never been a better time to own a multi-national business than right now. I think we'd probably see equal and opposite pain for small businesses operating solely in the US over the same period. Our current tax code places small businesses at a substantial disadvantage in just about every industry.

 

I think the article is making something like a type IV error, where they are probably correct in their interpretation that margins are at or near all-time highs, but I think they are right for the wrong reasons. Gross margins are much easier to compare and have also been increasing over the same period, but at a much more gradual pace. I'd argue they are more representative of the 'increase' in margins. I'd also argue there has been hidden deflation for nearly all types of goods and services, other than necessities and labor, that is altering the 'real' increase/decrease in margins. I don't think current level of margins are necessarily unsustainable for those reasons. If gross margins had spiked as well or if a different argument about current margins was made then I'd reconsider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Schwab,

You're right. There are many variables, some are correlated and some go in opposing directions. We're trying perhaps to detect material trends within this maelstrom of variables. You touch on many of those variables. To help, cou you elaborate on the "hidden deflation for nearly all types of goods and services, other than necessities and labor"?

Also, my understanding is that Mr. Yardeni is mostly a data provider. It is reported that he may feel that margins may stay elevated for some time before competitive forces eventually prevail. But, I don't have knowledge that he has made specific hypotheses with specific underlying premises/reasoning to support or reject an initial assertion.

Can you clarify which main factor(s) will cause the presently high margins to stay high over time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was discussing further with a colleague today, and another point we came across is that it appears that the margin story is just for the U.S., right?  We aren't seeing a similar trend in "permanently elevated" margins in Europe or Asia?

 

If this was the result of technological change, I'd expect it to be more evenly distributed as it's not just the U.S. that innovated productive technology.  If it's a function of rates, the disparity can be simply traced to the difference in corporate structures where the U.S. was more likely to lever up while global counterparts remain more conservatively financed.

 

Debt to equity ratios across U.S. companies remain higher than European counterparts and interest coverage ratios remain lower. The U.S. and Europe would both be the beneficiaries of some technological wave, but they wouldn't equally benefit from 3 decades of falling rates of European companies remained less leveraged than their U.S. counterparts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LongHaul,

I have looked at this (foreign sub advantage) many times.

Perhaps you can look at fig. 9 and 10 of the next link (Yardeni work).

http://www.yardeni.com/pub/ppphb.pdf

I think foreign profits tend to move margins higher but this does not appear to be a major factor especially since the "Great Recession".

 

 

Good posts everyone.

 

Schwab is right - not relevant to compare pretax vs post tax with corporate tax rate differential so high. 

Looking at slide 9&10 Yardeni is using pretax.  US corporate tax rates are much higher so the after tax effect percentage of foreign profits would likely be higher in slide 10.  I think it is likely this is the cause but I am not 100% sure.  If anyone has a clear breakout of US ONLY after tax profits that would be clearer to look at. 

 

The other thing that may be going on is consolidation causing pricing power.  If this has happened and is causing elevated margins thus ROIC, I would expect it to come down.  Of course the consolidation is a relative term vs 10, 20 yrs ago etc.

From a bottoms up perspective, I think there is more of this now than 15 yrs ago but I can't quantify it in the S&P 500.

 

 

See Figure 4

First - for all the brand names, and brain power the clarity of what the data actually is pathetic.  I don't really understand it because is it Net after tax corporate profits?  No clear definitions given.

 

Assuming Figure 4 is Net after tax corpororate profits for the S&P 500 then the figure has gone from ~6.5% in the 90's to 8ish range now.  That is a big jump ~23%. 

https://www.yardeni.com/pub/sp500margin.pdf

 

See Net margins page 17

Factset - not as large of a time frame.

https://insight.factset.com/hubfs/Resources/Research%20Desk/Earnings%20Insight/EarningsInsight_030917.pdf

 

Here is the deal - investors get excited by industry consolidation and companies jacking up prices.  But the long term effect is new entrants come in and revenues and profits decline.  At the end of the day though it is hard to disentangle what is really causing the increase in after tax corporate profits.  Best to to in industry by industry when one invests.

 

 

 

 

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...