Feed Aggregator Page 589

Rendered on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:00:08 GMT  newer latest older 

Why Straight Path Communications Inc. Stock Skyrocketed Today

via Motley Fool Headlines by on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:56:00 GMT

2 Upgrades In 1 Day for Merck -- and 3 Things You Need to Know

via Motley Fool Headlines by on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:43:25 GMT

Escalating Real Estate Taxes Will Cause The Next Housing Crisis (Video)

via by EconMatters on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:38:46 GMT

By EconMatters

We check out the Real Estate taxes across the country at various price points for homes, and it is obvious that local and state governments have a spending problem that they expect home owners to fund through these revenue raising vehicles. There are several drivers already in place for the next housing crisis. The Baby Boomers downsizing and moving into managed care facilities, unaffordable real estate relative to incomes (especially on the two coasts), Rising Real Estate Taxes and Total Home Ownership Costs, Rising Interest Rates, Inflation, and the end of the current business cycle.

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

13 Contrarian Economic Predictions For 2017

via by Tyler Durden on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:30:52 GMT

Submitted by Jared 'The 10th Man' Dillian via MauldinEconomics.com,

Everyone likes to compile lists of predictions for the new year.

I don’t.

Did you ever notice that when you look at all the failed predictions in any given December, what ended up happening was the opposite of what everyone predicted?

Contrarian Economic Predictions

Given that most predictions end up being wrong, why not just take a look at what passes for conventional wisdom and do the opposite?

Warning: many of these involve Trump.

1. Trump is going to nuke somebody in 2017

It is true that Trump wants to increase, rather than decrease, our nuclear capabilities, which runs pretty much counter to anybody’s idea of what constitutes peaceful behavior in 2017.

The interesting thing about the nuclear threat is that as the popular perception of it has waned since the Cold War, the actual nuclear threat has increased as the number of nuclear weapons has declined.

What if the opposite happens—what if peace breaks out all over in 2017? And what if it is because of Trump?

2. Trump’s billionaire cabinet is going to turn the United States into a vast plutocracy

The interesting thing is that inequality massively increased under Obama, who was allegedly concerned about the poor. Trump seems concerned about the rich—what if the opposite happens? What if inequality decreases?

There are a lot of good reasons why this would happen, particularly the composition of the Federal Reserve, which is about to get more hawkish no matter what happens. Raise interest rates to something approaching equilibrium, and a lot of this stupid risk-taking activity comes to an end.

3. We are due for a recession

What if we’re not? Recessions, probabilistically speaking, are independent events. Just because we haven’t had one in eight years doesn’t mean we’re going to have one tomorrow. There’s no reason the expansion can’t continue. The only way we get a recession is if the Fed causes one by ripping rates.

4. The Fed is full of crap and will never raise rates

People are starting to come around to the idea that the Fed might hike rates some more, but the consensus opinion is that the Fed has a history of overpromising and underdelivering. There is a big blind spot here. It’s the classic boy-who-cried-wolf fable.

5. International trade is going to collapse under Trump

What if the opposite happens? What if there is actually more trade?

What if Trump doesn’t simply tear up existing treaties but renegotiates them? If we’ve learned anything since the election, it’s that a lot of the things we thought were true about Trump have been all wrong.

6. The BOJ is out of tools

USDJPY went from 100 to 118 in a heartbeat. It would appear that the BOJ has finally found its most powerful tool—the 10-year rate cap. People have been predicting endless deflation in Japan as long as I can remember. They missed the move in the Nikkei and USDJPY in 2012, and when inflation comes, it’s not likely anyone will get that right, either.

7. The ECB will continue to do whatever it takes

What if they don’t?

We saw last Tuesday that German inflation is starting to rip.

You can read in Street Freak the implications of a Fillon presidency.

The Eurozone might be breaking out in growth—which might mean the end of radical monetary policy.

8. Healthcare and education costs will continue to skyrocket well into the future

People are so used to healthcare and education costs going up 15-odd percent a year, that they feel there is no way for the trend to be reversed. Again, a pro-growth, pro-business president introduces some market reforms (in the case of healthcare) and ends subsidies (in the case of education)… problem solved, or at least improved.

9, Global temperatures will continue to skyrocket

What if they don’t? I understand perfectly well the science behind it. But when everyone believes something, it is almost always wrong.

10. France, Italy, etc., will never grow

The French workers now have a government-approved right to ignore work-related emails outside of business hours. I’m guessing this is the top tick in stupidity. Wealth is the direct result of work. If you want wealth, you have to work. If you don’t work, you won’t have wealth. I think Europe is getting closer to figuring this out.

There are some really cool trades to put on with this idea.

11. Mexico is screwed, because of Trump

Probably not.

12. China is going to blow up the world

Everything you read about China is probably false.

13. The Cubs are going back-to-back in the World Series

I actually believe this. The Cubs will be a dynasty for years to come.

File this away and look at it a year from now.

I bet a lot of my dumb contrarian predictions actually come true, because whatever is the consensus is usually wrong.

Here’s a great tweet:

It’s better to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, than to be consensus for the sake of being consensus.

So for 2017, question your assumptions—always, always question your assumptions. Question what people believe to be true. Find the blind spots. Trade accordingly.

You can download this free report from Mauldin Economics detailing the rocky roads that lie ahead for three globally important countries in 2017—and how the economic fallout from their coming crises could affect you. Top 3 Economic Surprises for 2017 is required reading for investors and concerned citizens alike. Get your free copy now.

Why LifeLock Shares Soared 67% in 2016

via Motley Fool Headlines by on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:26:00 GMT

Why Century Aluminum Co's Shares Popped 16% Today

via Motley Fool Headlines by on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:19:00 GMT

Why The Advisory Board Company Stock Jumped Today

via Motley Fool Headlines by on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:07:00 GMT

A Well-Kept Open Secret: Washington Is Behind India’s Brutal Experiment of Abolishing Most Cash

via by George Washington on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:53:35 GMT

Preface: Washington's Blog reached out to Dr. Haering after reading several excellent articles on India's cash ban.  Dr. Haering then combined the information into a single article for us. We lightly edited the article for spelling and grammar.

By Norbert Haering, a German financial journalist, blogger and PhD economist, who received the 2007 getAbstract Best Business Book award and the 2014 prize of the German Keynes Society for economic journalism. His best-selling book (in German) “The abolition of cash and the consequences” was published in 2016. Originally published on norberthaering.de (http://norberthaering.de/en/home/27-german/news/745-washington-s-role-in-india). Republished with permission of the author.

In early November, without warning, the Indian government declared the two largest denomination bills invalid, abolishing over 80 percent of circulating cash by value. Amidst all the commotion and outrage this caused, nobody seems to have taken note of the decisive role that Washington played in this. That is surprising, as Washington’s role has been disguised only very superficially.

U.S. President Barack Obama has declared the strategic partnership with India a priority of his foreign policy. China needs to be reined in. In the context of this partnership, the US government’s development agency USAID has negotiated cooperation agreements with the Indian ministry of finance. One of these has the declared goal to push back the use of cash in favor of digital payments in India and globally.

On November 8, Indian prime minster Narendra Modi announced that the two largest denominations of banknotes could not be used for payments any more with almost immediate effect. Owners could only recoup their value by putting them into a bank account before the short grace period expired at year end, which many people and businesses did not manage to do, due to long lines in front of banks. The amount of cash that banks were allowed to pay out to individual customers was severely restricted. Almost half of Indians have no bank account and many do not even have a bank nearby. The economy is largely cash based. Thus, a severe shortage of cash ensued. Those who suffered the most were the poorest and most vulnerable. They had additional difficulty earning their meager living in the informal sector or paying for essential goods and services like food, medicine or hospitals. Chaos and fraud reigned well into December.

Four weeks earlier

Not even four weeks before this assault on Indians, USAID had announced the establishment of “Catalyst: Inclusive Cashless Payment Partnership”, with the goal of effecting a quantum leap in cashless payment in India. The press statement of October 14 says that Catalyst “marks the next phase of partnership between USAID and Ministry of Finance to facilitate universal financial inclusion”. The statement does not show up in the list of press statements on the website of USAID (anymore?). Not even filtering statements with the word “India” would bring it up. To find it, you seem to have to know it exists, or stumble upon it in a web search. Indeed, this and other statements, which seemed rather boring before, have become a lot more interesting and revealing after November 8.

Reading the statements with hindsight it becomes obvious, that Catalyst and the partnership of USAID and the Indian Ministry of Finance, from which Catalyst originated, are little more than fronts which were used to be able to prepare the assault on all Indians using cash without arousing undue suspicion. Even the name Catalyst sounds a lot more ominous, once you know what happened on November 9.

Catalyst’s Director of Project Incubation is Alok Gupta, who used to be Chief Operating Officer of the World Resources Institute in Washington, which has USAID as one of its main sponsors. He was also an original member of the team that developed Aadhaar, the Big-Brother-like biometric identification system.

According to a report of the Indian Economic Times, USAID has committed to finance Catalyst for three years. Amounts are kept secret.

Badal Malick was Vice President of India’s most important online marketplace Snapdeal, before he was appointed as CEO of Catalyst. He commented:

“Catalyst’s mission is to solve multiple coordination problems that have blocked the penetration of digital payments among merchants and low-income consumers. We look forward to creating a sustainable and replicable model…. While there has been … a concerted push for digital payments by the government, there is still a last mile gap when it comes to merchant acceptance and coordination issues. We want to bring a holistic ecosystem approach to these problems.”

Also in September, McKinsey Global Institute issued a report titled “How digital finance could boost growth in emerging economies”.  The authors acknowledged “collaboration with the Financial Services for the Poor team at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation”. They thanked more than ten Gates Foundation (BTCA) people for contribution to the report, including Gates Foundation’s India head Nachiket Mor, whom we will meet again later. The Gates Foundation and USAID are key members of a Better Than Cash Alliance, which we will also look at more closely. In mid-December, seemingly unfazed by ample evidence that taking away cash in India has been the exact opposite of helping the poor and promoting “financial inclusion”, McKinsey-partner Susan Lund and study contributor Laura Tyson published “The promise of digital finance”, making fantastic claims about the advantages of pushing back cash-use in favor of digital, including ten percent higher GDP for countries like India.

Ten months earlier

The multiple coordination problem and the cash-ecosystem-issue that Malick mentions had been analysed in a report that USAID commissioned in 2015 and presented in January 2016, in the context of the anti-cash partnership with the Indian Ministry of Finance. The press release on this presentation is also not in USAID’s list of press statements (anymore?). The title of the study was “Beyond Cash”.

“Merchants, like consumers, are trapped in cash ecosystems, which inhibits their interest” in digital payment it said in the report. Since few traders accept digital payments, few consumers have an interest in it, and since few consumers use digital payments, few traders have an interest in it. Given that banks and payment providers charge fees for equipment to use or even just try out digital payment, a strong external impulse is needed to achieve a level of card penetration that would create mutual interest of both sides in digital payment options.

It turned out in November that the declared “holistic ecosystem approach” to create this impulse consisted in destroying the cash-ecosystem for a limited time and to slowly dry it up later, by limiting the availability of cash from banks for individual customers. Since the assault had to be a surprise to achieve its full catalyst-results, the published Beyond-Cash-Study and the protagonists of Catalyst could not openly describe their plans. They used a clever trick to disguise them and still be able to openly do the necessary preparations, even including expert hearings. They consistently talked of a regional field experiment that they were ostensibly planning.

“The goal is to take one city and increase the digital payments 10x in six to 12 months,” said Malick less than four weeks before most cash was abolished in the whole of India. To not be limited in their preparation on one city alone, the Beyond Cash report and Catalyst kept talking about a range of regions they were examining, ostensibly in order to later decide which was the best city or region for the field experiment. Only in November did it became clear that the whole of India should be the guinea-pig-region for a global drive to end the reliance on cash. Reading a statement of Ambassador Jonathan Addleton, USAID Mission Director to India, with hindsight, it becomes clear that he stealthily announced that, when he said four weeks earlier:

“India is at the forefront of global efforts to digitize economies and create new economic opportunities that extend to hard-to-reach populations. Catalyst will support these efforts by focusing on the challenge of making everyday purchases cashless.”

Catalyst is housed at IFMR, an Indian research institute, of which Gates Foundation India’s CEO Nachiket Mor is a board member, has many US-Institutions as funders, including many members of a group called Better Thank Cash Alliance, including USAID, Gates Foundation, Ford foundation, Citi. IFMR is a member of the “Alliance for financial inclusion”, which is financed by the Gates Foundation (BTCA).

Veterans of the war on cash in action

Who are the institutions behind this decisive attack on cash? Upon the presentation of the Beyond-Cash-report, USAID declared: “Over 35 key Indian, American and international organizations have partnered with the Ministry of Finance and USAID on this initiative.” On the ominously named website http://cashlesscatalyst.org/ one can see that they are mostly IT- and payment service providers who want to make money from digital payments or from the associated data generation on users. Many are veterans of what a high-ranking official of Deutsche Bundesbank called the “war of interested financial institutions on cash” (in German). They include the Better Than Cash Alliance, the Gates Foundation (Microsoft), Omidyar Network (eBay), the Dell Foundation Mastercard, Visa, Metlife Foundation.

The Better Than Cash Alliance

The Better Than Cash Alliance, which includes USAID as a member, is mentioned first for a reason. It was founded in 2012 to push back cash on a global scale. The secretariat is housed at the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDP) in New York, which might have its reason in the fact that this rather poor small UN organization was glad to have the Gates Foundation in one of the two preceding years and the MasterCard Foundation in the other as its most generous donors.

The members of the Alliance are large US-Institutions which would benefit most from pushing back cash, i.e. credit card companies Mastercard and Visa, and also some U.S. institutions whose names come up a lot in books on the history of the United States intelligence services, namely Ford Foundation and USAID. A prominent member is also the Gates Foundation. Omidyar Network of eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and Citi are important contributors. Almost all of these are individually also partners in the current USAID-India-Initiative to end the reliance on cash in India and beyond. The initiative and the Catalyst program seem little more than an extended Better Than Cash Alliance, augmented by Indian and Asian organizations with a strong business interest in a much decreased use of cash.

Reserve Bank of India’s IMF-Chicago Boy

The partnership to prepare the temporary banning of most cash in India coincides roughly with the tenure of Raghuram Rajan at the helm of Reserve Bank of India from September 2013 to September 2016. Rajan (53) had been, and is now again, economics professor at the University of Chicago. From 2003 to 2006 he had been Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington. (This is a cv item he shares with another important warrior against cash, Ken Rogoff.) He is a member of the Group of Thirty, a rather shady organization, where high ranking representatives of the world major commercial financial institutions share their thoughts and plans with the presidents of the most important central banks, behind closed doors and with no minutes taken. It becomes increasingly clear that the Group of Thirty is one of the major coordination centers of the worldwide war on cash. Its membership includes other key warriors like Rogoff, Larry Summers and others.

Raghuram Rajan has ample reason to expect to climb further to the highest rungs in international finance and thus had good reason to play Washington’s game well. He already was a President of the American Finance Association and inaugural recipient of its Fisher-Black Prize in financial research. He won the handsomely endowed prizes of Infosys for economic research and of Deutsche Bank for financial economics as well as the Financial Times/Goldman Sachs Prize for best economics book. He was declared Indian of the year by NASSCOM and Central Banker of the year by Euromoney and by The Banker. He is considered a possible successor of Christine Lagard at the helm of the IMF, but can certainly also expect to be considered for other top jobs in international finance.

A flying-start in 2013

In 2013, the year after BTCA was founded, Rajan, former Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington, took over the post of Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).  One of his first decisions was to set up the “Committee on Comprehensive Financial Services for Small Businesses and Low Income Households”. He put Nachiket Mor in charge of it, a banker an board-member of the RBI. In March 2016 the Gates Foundation made Mor head of its India country office. A reward?

Somewhat counterintuitively, the Mor Committee that was to foster financial inclusion of the poor and of rural areas, was heavily dominated by big finance and law firms, with a strong US bias and. Members included Vikram Pandit, former CEO Citigroup, a member of the Better Than Cash Alliance, and Bundu Ananth, President of IFMR Trust. A further member of the Mor Committee was a representative of the National Payments Corporation of India the umbrella organization of payment service providers, which aims to move India to a cashless society. Another member was credit Rating Agency CRISIL, majority-owned by the US Rating giant Standard & Poor’s.

In May 2016, RBI announced plans to print a new series of banknotes and announced in August that it had approved a design for a new 2,000 rupee note.

As a Central Bank Governor, Rajan was liked and well respected by the financial sector, but very much disliked by company people from the real (producing) sector, despite his penchant for deregulation and economic reform. The main reason was the restrictive monetary policy he introduced and staunchly defended. After he was viciously criticized from the ranks of the governing party, he declared in June that he would not seek a second term in September. Later he told the New York Times that he had wanted to stay on, but not for a whole term, and that premier Modi would not have that. A former commerce and law Minister, Mr. Swamy, said on the occasion of Rajan’s departure that it would make Indian industrialists happy:

“I certainly wanted him out, and I made it clear to the prime minister, as clear as possible…. His audience was essentially Western, and his audience in India was transplanted westernized society. People used to come in delegations to my house to urge me to do something about it.”

A disaster that had to happen

If Rajan was involved in the preparation of this assault to declare most of Indians’ banknotes illegal – and there should be little doubt about that, given his personal and institutional links and the importance of Reserve Bank of India in the provision of cash – he had ample reason to stay in the background. After all, it cannot have surprised anyone closely involved in the matter, that this would result in chaos and extreme hardship, especially for the majority of poor and rural Indians, who were flagged as the supposed beneficiaries of the badly misnamed “financial inclusion” drive. USAID and partners had analyzed the situation extensively and found in the Beyond-Cash-report that 97% of transactions were done in cash and that only 55% of Indians had a bank account. They also found that even of these bank accounts, “only 29% have been used in the last three months“.

All this was well known and made it a certainty that suddenly abolishing most cash would cause severe and even existential problems to many small traders and producers and to many people in remote regions without banks. When it did, it became obvious, how false the promise of financial inclusion by digitalization of payments and pushing back cash has always been. There simply is no other means of payment that can compete with cash in allowing everybody with such low hurdles to participate in the market economy.

However, for Visa, Mastercard and the other payment service providers, who were not affected by these existential problems of the huddled masses, the assault on cash will most likely turn out a big success, “scaling up” digital payments in the “trial region”.  After this chaos and with all the losses that they had to suffer, all business people who can afford it, are likely to make sure they can accept digital payments in the future. And consumers, who are restricted in the amount of cash they can get from banks now, will use opportunities to pay with cards, much to the benefit of Visa, Mastercard and the other members of the extended Better Than Cash Alliance.

Who knew?

In a report of news agency Reuters from December named “Who knew?”, unnamed Indian official sources want to make us believe that only the prime minister himself and a handful of people, knew of the plans. The Reuters report names only one of the supposedly five who knew, a high-ranking official of the finance ministry. Tellingly, there is not a single mention of any foreign involvement, despite a formal cooperation of the finance ministry with USAID, aimed at pushing back cash in favor of digital payments. This makes the Reuters piece another piece of evidence in favor of the hypothesis that a strong and not fully legitimate force behind the brutal intervention that happened in November is being covered up.

The hypothesis that a main driver behind the demonetization were U.S. interests, does not at all imply that the Indian prime minister and other Indian constituents did not have their own interests associated with it.  It is hardly possible to get the elite of a country to do something that goes against their own interests, but it is fairly easy to get them to do something that helps significant fractions of them, but hurts the majority of the people. A few possible such interests, taken from readers’ suggestions are recapitalising the public banks, which were staggering under the weight of bad loans to cronies, the interests of online payment platforms and online marketplaces as well as retail chains, which, curiously, as an Indian journalist tells me, were well supplied with cash in their in-store ATMs and benefited from the wiping out of informal competition.

Why Washington is waging a global war on cash

The business interests of the U.S. companies that dominate the global IT business and payment systems are an important reason for the zeal of the U.S. government in its push to reduce cash use worldwide, but it is not the only one and might not be the most important one. Another motive is surveillance power that goes with increased use of digital payment. U.S. intelligence organizations and IT companies together can survey all international payments done through banks and can monitor most of the general stream of digital data.  Financial data tends to be the most important and valuable.

Even more importantly, the status of the dollar as the world’s currency of reference and the dominance of U.S. companies in international finance provide the US government with tremendous power over all participants in the formal non-cash financial system. It can make everybody conform to American law rather than to their local or international rules. German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has recently run a chilling story describing how that works (German). Employees of a German factoring firm doing completely legal business with Iran were put on a US terror list, which meant that they were shut off most of the financial system and even some logistics companies would not transport their furniture any more. A major German bank was forced to fire several employees upon U.S. request, who had not done anything improper or unlawful.

There are many more such examples. Every internationally active bank can be blackmailed by the U.S. government into following their orders, since revoking their license to do business in the U.S. or in dollar basically amounts to shutting them down. Just think about Deutsche Bank, which had to negotiate with the US Treasury for months whether they would have to pay a fine of 14 billion dollars and most likely go broke, or get away with seven billion and survive. If you have the power to bankrupt the largest banks even of large countries, you have power over their governments, too. This power through dominance over the financial system and the associated data is already there. The less cash there is in use, the more extensive and secure it is, as the use of cash is a major avenue for evading this power.

'Protectionist' Obama Escalates Trade War, Slams China With Subsidized Aluminum Complaint

via by Tyler Durden on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:40:54 GMT

With all the partisan narrative defining Trump as a tariff-setting, anti-trade, economy-buster, we thought it ironic that free-trade-wunderkid Obama just escalated trade wars by bringing his administration's 16th trade-enforcement complaint against China with WTO, urging tariffs on subsidised Chinese aluminum, after accusing them of funneling artificially cheap loans from state-run banks to producers.

Despite declining global aluminum prices, China has increased production 154% over the past eight years while upping capacity by 243%, according to the U.S. government.

As Bloomberg reports, the complaint says China has harmed U.S. interests by artificially expanding Chinese capacity, production and market share, resulting in a significant lowering of the global price for primary aluminum. It is the 16th trade enforcement challenge President Barack Obama’s administration has launched at the WTO against China.

“This latest challenge once again demonstrates the Obama administration’s unwavering commitment to ensuring a fair and level playing field for American workers and businesses,” U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in a written statement. “Artificially cheap loans from banks and low-priced inputs for Chinese aluminum are contributing to excess capacity and undercutting American workers and businesses.”

In a statement very reminiscent of Trump's rhetoric on 'fair' not 'free' trade, President Obama noted he U.S. under his tenure has filed more enforcement complaints in the WTO than any other country and has won every one that’s been decided...

“America succeeds when our workers and businesses have a fair shot to compete in the global economy. That’s why when other countries cut corners and break the rules on trade, my Administration stands up for strong trade enforcement,” Obama said.

 

“China gives its aluminum industry an unfair advantage through underpriced loans and other illegal government subsidies. These kinds of policies have disadvantaged American manufacturers and contributed to the global glut in aluminum, steel, and other sectors.”

As The Wall Street Journal reports, the complaint would represent an escalation of trade disputes between countries with the world’s two largest economies almost a week before Donald Trump assumes the U.S. presidency. Mr. Trump suggested again Wednesday in a news conference that trade relations with Beijing would be a top priority, saying the U.S. trade imbalance with China was too large.

The complaint accuses China of funneling artificially cheap loans from state-run banks to Chinese aluminum producers, helping the companies upgrade their facilities and expand production, the people said. China also subsidizes aluminum production by providing producers with cut-rate coal and electricity, the complaint says, according to people familiar with it.

 

Donald Trump, who will be sworn in as the president’s successor next Friday, has vowed to pull out of or renegotiate free trade deals he argues allow Chinese market manipulations. During a press conference Wednesday in New York, Trump said China had “taken total advantage of us economically” and vowed the leadership in Beijing “will respect us far more” under his presidency.

So the timing of this escalation of trade disputes appears to be just another example of the Obama administration's "smooth transition" efforts to leave behind chaos for the Trump administration (even if this effort seems to fit with Trump's "fair" trade rhetoric).

How Southern Company Stock Fared in 2016

via Motley Fool Headlines by on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:56:00 GMT

 newer latest older