Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The big question: are stocks cheap or overvalued?



November 02, 2009 – Comments (23)

Well folks, I thought it might be a good time to sit down and take a look at the valuation of the S&P 500 and stocks in general. 

The market has come a long way, which of course means that stocks aren't as cheap as they were.  But its also fallen back a great deal in recent weeks with everything from the small and mid cap names that have led to rally to stalwarts like GS, AAPL, RIMM and more seeing corrections ranging from significant to severe.  

Indeed, stocks seem cheaper now than they've been since August in alot of ways.  Some names are getting hammered and sent back into the bargain bin, other names are lower despite fundamental improvements to their situation (good quarter, new financing, turned the corner, whatever).  The market is having one of those panic-attack phases that it has had a couple of times since the March bottom.  Earlier such phases include the day after april options day when my portfolio (in real life) fell 10% in a single day (soon to recover to new highs), a brief period in early may where a modest correction in the S&P concealed much broader profit taking in many stocks, and early July when stocks were outright cheap again and many names had seen 10, 20, 30, even 50% corrections from highs a month or two earlier.  Early July had that "holy crap, bargains abound" feeling to it...

Today we don't really have that bargains abound thing going on, but a whole lot of stocks are well off their highs of the last 2-3 months... the correction in the S&P of 6-6.5% conceals much, much greater corrections in the broader markets and many individual names.  So...

Are stocks cheap, or have the markets gone so far up that they are priced poorly and due for a huge correction? Do we have a stock market "bubble" or, 30% down from levels reached 10 years ago, are stocks still cheap? 

First, I tacked this issue in June in these blogs, you can look at that discussion here:

Second, the valuation numbers.  I used the Zacks research wizard and calculated price/sales, price/book, price/cash flow, price/ebitda, and price/earnings in a couple of ways for the S&P 500.  Here are the numbers:

price/sales:  1.15, median = 1.26

price/book:  2.0, median = 2.0

price/cash flow:   7.7, median = 7.9

price/ebitda:  6.9, median = 6.4

S&P 500 dividend yield:  2%ish

Historically, as you can see here,price/book has averaged 2.4 over the last 30+ years.  So we are still a bit under that (we'd hit the average at roughly S&P 1200-1250).  Also as that link discusses, R&D is not accounted for as "book value" and if it was we would have to discount price/book by an additional 10-15%.  So the market is cheap by price/book, although perhaps not dramatically cheap.

We are far below historical dividend yields on the S&P 500.  This is in part related to dramatic dividend cuts amid the panic and chaos last year (basically all banks, insurers slashed yield, which has a huge impact on the overall reading, and many cyclics and industrials did the same), it is in part related to the new-wave companies (tech and biotech) really not paying much or anything in the way of dividends but rather hoarding huge amounts of cash for future growth.  Witness aapl, goog, etc.  So ... comparing price/dividend with history is perhaps not the best way to look at this, but nonetheless it remains true that dividend yields today and in the last 10-15 years have been sub-par.  That in and of itself is a very relevant point, perhaps...  but perhaps one for another thread.

Price/sales.  We're at or slightly below historical averages here.  The Bara's link from the other thread is dead now, which is regrettable.  

Price/cash flow.  I don't have any historical data.

 Zacks research wizard offers forward p/e's of roughly 15 by two measures (12 months forward and next fiscal year foward).  These are reasonable valuations neither expensive or dramatically cheap.  Earnings are greatly levered to economic activity... a sudden drop can causevast losses... and all of the cost-cutting actions that have taken place should lever companies to a period of unusually high margins should economic activity continue to rebound.  There are additional quirks in GAAP earnings.  If an insurer, like say XL or GNW or HIG or AIG, marks down investments in a portfolio they take a GAAP loss on the mark-to-market markdown.  So if bond markets crash, insurers take GAAP losses.  If those same bond markets recover one day (as has happened in 2009) they DO NOT make a GAAP profit, rather just book value marks back up.  This permanently and artificially lowers earnings.  Some losses at these insurers were real, many were not.  however, GAAP earnings will be forever lowered by this oddity.

So from a strict valuations standpoint, excluding p/e's (to be discussed below), we're not remotely priced near "bubble" territory.  That doesn't mean the market can't golower or anything like that, but average valuations would probably be seen around S&P 1200, a bit higher than here.  


Now from a technical standpoint.  Practicioners of TA ...  don't hang me by my entrails here.  This isn't an elaborate or in depth analysis, its a broad one.  Its no elliott wave lets count the wave and make definitive declarations deal, its no oversold overbought deal, its the broadest most  simplistic kind of TA.

Exhibit 1:  the long term trend.  

Stocks have had a remarkably constant trend for 200 years.  In the US this is true even as we rose from an infant nation to preeminent world power.  Its true in the UK even as they fell from preeminent world power to just another country, suffered through 2 world wars, and saw their currency fall from "reserve" status.  And on and on.  

We were below this trend in the 30's, above it in the 60s, below it in the 70s, above it in the late 90s (dramatically above it), we fell approximately to it in the 2002 bear market (below at times perhaps but only briefly), and we fell far below it in the crash last fall and early this year.  We remain below it.  By my guesstimations it points to roughly S&P 1200-1250.  So exhibit 1 is bullish.


TA exhibit 2:  where are we here?  What have stocks done historically after 10 year bad periods?

We are 30+% down from where we were roughly 10 years ago on the S&P.  We are 33% down from where we were 2 years ago.  In the S&P 500 since 1950 we have seen a situation where stocks were down 30% in 10 years exactly once, at the 1974 bottoms.  Lets face it that was a great entry point. They were down 33% in 2 years again, only in the 70s (since 1950).  So looking at the S&P over the last 60 years, this technical indicator would imply that this is probably a pretty decent long term entry point.

Looking farther  back, at the Dow today and since 1929...  The dow isn't up in roughly 11 years.  its down about 30% over 2 years.  The last time that happened was the 1970s, again a very good long term entry point when viewed through thte lense of history.   So exhibit 2 is bullish.


TA exhibit 3:  Where are we here? part 2.  We are up hugely, 50% off the lows.  Lets take a look at where htat has put stocks historically.

From the 1974 bottom stocks rocketed up more than 50% from their bottoms only to sputter sideways to down for a couple of years.  The recovery highs were reached 5-6 months after the big 1974 bottom...  and ...  from those rapid recovery highs there were no real gains for 6 years.  Were the recovery highs of 1975 a good long trem entry point?  Yes.  Were they a good short termentry point?  Terrible.

In early 2003 stocks began a quick move up so that the DJIA was up 33% by early 2004.  It went much higher from there in time, but for the rest of 2004 and 2005 it sputtered largely sideways.  

In 1933 stocks nearly doubled over several months from DJIA 50ish to over 100.  From there they sputtered sideways for a year and a half before rocketing up to nrearly 200 by 1937. 

Each of these historical precedents imply that we aren't likely to see any big upside from here after having this monster move up from the bottom.  They do not imply that there won't be big upside at some future time or that we're destined to crash anew, but in general history seems to imply that the big fast money is made fairly quickly in recoveries from big crashes and once the first phase of the recovery is run out, the markets tend to consolidate for a time before resuming their march upward.

These 3 examples differ from the current situation in that stocks were cheaper in absolute terms then than they are now.  They also differ (especially the 70s) in that interest rates on government bonds were far higher then than now, inflation was far higher, and so forth.  

Will we go higher in 2009 or 2010 than the 1100 we saw thus far in 2009?  No way to know, and I don't offer any predictions.

But based on the preponderance of the data i've dug up here, it looks like we are probably at a pretty good long term entry point still.  Stocks aren't expensive, they are well down from previous highs, etc.  But it may also be that the market won't move dramatically up after this monster move.  Historically, monster moves off major bottoms have lasted less than a year and then spent a longer time consolidating.  

Now, if that happens here again, and we don't move impressively up from here for a time, that doesn't mean that the market will crash.  It may simply sputter sideways, frustrating both bears and bulls and momentum traders alike.  


23 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 02, 2009 at 4:45 AM, checklist34 (98.59) wrote:

i have a clearly bad track record when it comes to predicting moves in the market.  Or, rather, possibly, I have a dart-board track record about the same as everybody elses.  i did get my S&P 1100 in 2009 wish, and I did take out alot of hedges as I vowed I would...  I took alot of those out before 1100, but oh well... they are working nicely as of Friday.

Here's my prediction:  1100 holds on the S&P as the high for 2009.  The current correction stalls around S&P 1000ish, we move up from there into 2010.

In 2010 we don't double dip, housing doesn't make dramatic new bottoms,the stimulus money actually gets spent (no matter how many "yappy bears", to quote EV38, we hear spouting that the only reason the economy has recovered at all is because of the stimulus and now that the stimulus money is gone we're going to plunge anew...  see and note that to date just over 25% of the money has actually been spent.  Thats alot of dry powder left to aim at the economy...).  So the world doesn't end, basically.

The markets continue their pattern seen so far in the recovery of cycles where the stocks that got hammered the most in the downturn dramatically outperform, which leads to "dash for trash" and other annoyed foot-stomping pouting sessions from professional investors in the media, just like we saw in August.

This is followed by periods where those stocks underperform significantly, just like we've seen in the last 6 weeks or so.  

This dynamic exists andwill continue, I think, because so many of these stocks went so dramatically down - and remain in many cases dramatically below their historical valuations - that ... it works like this

someone bought at the bottom and held (me!) and is holding (me!), but...

1.  people bought at the bottom and sold into huge profits at some future date.  This triggers the stocks stepping back and more profit taking (because the profits are so huge).  Prices go down on these names.

2.  people (maybe the same ones, maybe new ones) buy the shares and feel they got them "cheap".  so they are 2-3-4 times off the bottom, they are still down 25%-50% from recent highs and 5x or 10x from a year ago.  The market turns up, these stocks outperform violently as people pile in

rinse, repeat.  The insurance companies that make up my largest positions have seen this pattern, casinos have seen this pattern (i don't have alot of love for casino stocks at this point, btw), etc, etc, etc.

But overall, from here, out to 2 years, the biggest returns will still be in the stocks that are beaten down the most from 2 years ago.  In many but certainly not all cases, the very same stocks that went up the most since march are the same stocks that are still down the most from 2005-2007 levels and down the most from historical valuations.  

So, CL34 outperformsin 2010 with the same kind of mix of dramatic, intoxicating periods of outperformance and shocking, vulgar periods of underperformance that I've had in 2009.  

Thats my prediction.  To recap

S&P high for 2009:  already in, 1100

S&P high for 2010:  1250

S&P low for 2009:  990

S&P low for 2010:  1000

some stocks I like for 2010 from here:  CNO, GNW, XL (I bet they raise the dividend), ARCC/ALD (same stock now, sort of), RJET (after probably a long several months of going nowhere, RJET shows a nice profit from the Frontier/Midwest aquisitions one quarter and begins a move up.  Nobody loves RJET, even as it moves up, because its an airline.  If its ever loved, I'm immediately selling), MCGC (dividend comes back in late 2010 and the stock trades for roughly book value at some point during the year), BAC if it goes much lower than $14.  Its priced less than 1/2 the valuation of some peers, its going to 20+.  Maybe F if it goes much lower here.  F is uniquely positioned to benefit from the crisis as people like me ... formerly shunning of ford products and loyal to GM, are annoyed at union/government ownership of GM and Chrysler and will learn to like F150s and ... learn not to like Silverados.  

Some stocks I don't like for 2010: I don't generally spend alot of time looking for stocks to short so I have nothing here. If the market ever gets grossly overvalued, I'll think of some stocks to short.  :)

Do not, and I mean do not, make an investment decision based on me predicting the market.  This is just mental mas#rbation and nothing more.  I suck at predicting the markets moves and I have the track record to prove it.  

Report this comment
#2) On November 02, 2009 at 4:47 AM, checklist34 (98.59) wrote:

And one more prediction:this secular bear market lasts 15 years.  Its 4-5 more years until we really resume a new bull marmket.  And that frustrates bulls.

And this secular bear market doesn't see another dramatic crash.  And that frustrates bears.

For a few years here, I think we're all going to be less than thrilled.

best regards, CL 34

Report this comment
#3) On November 02, 2009 at 5:56 AM, kaskoosek (30.20) wrote:

I'm buying also. Long term the dollar is still toast.

Report this comment
#4) On November 02, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Alaska714 (< 20) wrote:

Sorry for the simplistic and petty question, but what does one think stocks will do for the next 1 and/or 2 weeks?  I have a few (very few) dollars I want to purchase some stocks this week – should I wait and see if prices drop more or place my orders for Monday opening?  Thanks.

Report this comment
#5) On November 02, 2009 at 8:33 AM, russiangambit (28.72) wrote:

> Early July had that "holy crap, bargains abound" feeling to it...

I didn't really feel stocks were barginasa in July. In February - March, I had similar thinking - are they are really going to zero? And what do I have to loose by putting $5-8 per share on an S&P 500 names? But after I made 100% on them in a month, I got out. Big mistake, but we do't know the future and you gotta do what you think is right.

Alaska, people  like you worry me. If you have little money to lose and  you have to ask bloggers what you should invest in, then stay away from stocks. Paper trade for at least  a year, CAPS is a good place to do that. That will help you develop some insight.


Report this comment
#6) On November 02, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Alaska714 (< 20) wrote:

Sound advise, thank you.  So... what does one think will happen this/next week to stock prices?

Report this comment
#7) On November 02, 2009 at 9:42 AM, checklist34 (98.59) wrote:

alaska, I haven't any idea at all what stock prices will do over a short time period like a week or two, and ...  its just so difficult to divine something like that that I don't think anybody else knows either.

Its anybodies guess what the market will do next, ...  all the thoughts I offer above are complete conjecture that nobody should take too seriously or make plans based on either. 

Only the calculations of valuation and observations of historical tendencies above are valid points, if you please. 

good luck!

Report this comment
#8) On November 02, 2009 at 9:42 AM, checklist34 (98.59) wrote:

hey kask.  history suggests that if inflation sets in in earnest, stocks will at first take a big hit.  They will then ultimately catch up to commodities and pass them, also catch up to inflation and pass it, and eventually regress back to their same old curve of beating inflation by several percent a year.

A beautiful thing would be if one could ...  not be in them if a sudden bout of inflation did hit and they did take a thumping, then buy in.  ... and hold for 10 years or so.  That'd be happy.

Inflation seems inevitable, but the timing seems wildly unclear.  Right now I think oil prices are far ahead of the fundamentals on speculation, which in turn works to impair the economy to some extent with higher gas prices, raw material prices, etc.  Oil speculation should perhaps be more strictly regulated for the greater good.

But i'm getting off subject.  Inflation seems inevitable.  The government practically needs it, and the government has a printing press. 

Was it you that suggested shares of REITs as a double-edged inflation play?  I think the logic there is sound, but... I question the valuation of these things right now...  unless you wade in and among the muck, so to speak, and try to find survivors among those with share prices still in the toilet.  Maybe thats something to do these days.  But companies like SPG are hardly cheap anymore.

Got any thoughts on current market valuation?

Report this comment
#9) On November 02, 2009 at 9:47 AM, checklist34 (98.59) wrote:


      they were nothing like the cheapness of late February, no.  And the biggest & best names had mostly shored up.  So you are right, I may have overstated my case, but...

      Blackstone for 8 bucks, USG for 8 bucks, CBI for 8 bucks, BAC and HIG for 10 bucks when both had gov't backing and appeared to be on the mend, CNO for $1's even after it was profitable, BZ for $1s even after it was profitable...  These seemed like good buys.

      but, again, you are right, it wasn't like earlier in the year.


Report this comment
#10) On November 02, 2009 at 10:45 AM, portefeuille (98.89) wrote:

new letter by Leuthold.

the Leuthold Core Investment Fund Q3 Report (pdf)

another Leuthold article.

View from the North Country (pdf)

more Leuthold stuff is here.

Report this comment
#11) On November 02, 2009 at 10:59 AM, bothisellhigher (29.20) wrote:

Hey Alaska...I can see your wanting to get some skin in the is so very exciting when you are on a trade.  There is no question that Russian has the very best advice for you and almost everyone else similar, including most Fools who play here. 

But again, you are not going to listen to him are you?  So play your small stake and see what happens...You will probably lose it all and that's ultimately cool cause you will learn a lesson. That lesson is... Do what Russian advises next time...paper trade for a year.  You could also win, and that could be the beginning of big things for you and that is most cool.

You are asking what the next two weeks have in store...nobody knows that, except for liars and charlatans.  But the question means to me that your current interest is in trading...short term.

My interest as well.  I do not know what is going to happen in the next two weeks.  My bet is that the market is going down.

I have made a couple of nice scores on the short side by playing the ETF...FAZ.  I am waiting for a shot at playing it again, probably around $20.50 but certainly (for me) when the current mini rally back to S+P 500 1050 ends...cause once it heads back down by end of today or tomorrow, I think it's going down solidly. 

Russian is far smarter than I am and gives the best advice.

I give you candy, what you want to hear, cause you want to try a trade.  Tell you what.  Go to Good Vibe's web site at and listen to what he has to say...he's a trader and also far smarter than I am. And keep reading what sharp people like Checklist and Binve and Goldmining Expert and Sinch and others have to say.  Good luck to you.

Report this comment
#12) On November 02, 2009 at 11:06 AM, checklist34 (98.59) wrote:

thanks porte.  I spent several hours at the amsterdam airport this weekend watching leuthold vids and reading his posts.  Apparently in the early 80s during the peak of the treasury crisis where yields went to 15% he predicted that inflation would drop, long term, to less than 3% and treasury yields would go to 5%.  not too bad!


Report this comment
#13) On November 02, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Alaska714 (< 20) wrote:

Thanks 'sellhigher.  I will check out the links. 

I bought 15 stocks this morning - from $41./share down to $1.68./share. Fun was had by all.




Report this comment
#14) On November 02, 2009 at 11:23 AM, checklist34 (98.59) wrote:

Folks, some additional data:

as calculated by me the historical price/GDP is 8.5% where the S&P closing price for the year divided by that years GDP in billions is .085 basically.  It is currently 7.5%, roughly.

So that also points to the 1200-1250 mark as putting us at the historical average.


And lastly, the "fed model".  The fed model suggests that the earnings yield in stocks tends to equal the yield on long term government bonds.  So basically the inverse of p/e for stocks as a whole tends to equal the yield on longer term bonds.  This has l...  held up pretty well for a while in the late 70's through mid 90s, before breaking down in the tech bubble (where earnings yield was much lower than treasury yield) and again in the crash of 08/09 (where earnings yield was much higher than treasury yield).  The "fed model" looks at forward earnings, i believe.

The forward earnings yield of equities remains well higher than the yield on long term bonds, which would imply that by this measure equities are cheap.  Also, the current 2ish% yield on equities is not out of line with historic dividend yield/treasury yield measures.

However, I ... I would not put any bullish faith into a fed model analysis.  Treasuries are standing at what may be the end of a 25+ year bull market where yields on long term bonds have fallen steadily.  


Anyway, and interestingly, a great many measure point to the 1200ish range as roughly "fair value" if we define "fair value" as the market being priced according to historical averages.

Report this comment
#15) On November 02, 2009 at 11:27 AM, checklist34 (98.59) wrote:

porte:  thanks for that graph I posted above, I copied it from your older post


alaska:  good luck.  I maintain that nobody, and I mean nobody, "knows" what the market is going to do in the short term consistently.  Short term is completely a gamble.  

If your perspective is really short term, like a week or two, and you wind up up a bit...  take the profits!  at least take some of the profits, the market can turn quickly.


sellhigher:  thanks for the input & be careful with those levered ETFs!

Report this comment
#16) On November 02, 2009 at 12:17 PM, UltraContrarian (30.75) wrote:

I really hate "overvalued".  It doesn't make any sense for those of us who keep the difference between price and value in mind. The opposite of cheap is expensive, or overpriced.

Report this comment
#17) On November 02, 2009 at 2:38 PM, kaskoosek (30.20) wrote:

I closed my long positions in REITs after the sharp runup.

Too much volatility. 

Report this comment
#18) On November 02, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Alaska714 (< 20) wrote:

Thanks Checklist.  Actually I am a long holder.  I have been buying stocks for about 2 years and have never sold one.  I also have 4 Vanguards which disappoint consistently.  I am working/playing with about 25K so I am not taking my life into my own hands with every trade.  If I loose half my investment, nothing changes in my life, if I double my investment, nothing changes.  I do like to play the game to win, so when I feel like buying some more stocks I go shopping and ask stupid questions, but again it is more of a game so I don’t get too excited when admonished by the experts.  So far so good – I am much ahead of the S&P and far above Vanguard.  Thanks again to all CAPS!

Report this comment
#19) On November 03, 2009 at 4:54 AM, checklist34 (98.59) wrote:

ultracontrarian, fair enough but a semantic debate is maybe avoidable...

kask, ... REITs are soemthing worth consideration if this pullback goes significantlyd eeper.  I can live with volatility...  even though it is extreme.  

To imagine how volatile my real world portfolio has been, consider this rough discussion of how its gone.

I had 10 bucks when I began in, say, late the first couple trading days of 2009.  I bought alot on Jan 5 with the S&P at like 930.  Then slowly bought in, buying most every day, until to my dismay I had only about $8.10 in my account on February 20th.  At 10am on February 23rd I had about 11 bucks.  All from a buyout in my largest position, Nova Chemical. By that evening I had about 10.50, the next day I had 11.25

By the march bottoms I was down to...  about $7.70.  

I was over $10 by the end of the week of the 9th.

I hit $16 by April 17th.  In a single day on april 20th I dropped to $14.  double digit percentage loss in a day.  I put most of my spare cash in on the 20th.

By may 8th I'd hit $20.50 or so.  By the end of the next week I was at $17.

At the June highs I had about $21.

By the july lows I had only $16.  I covered some short calls and sold some puts and went nearly all in at the july lows.

I hit the vaunted triple my money mark sometimes in late august or early September, soaring all the way to $36 at one point.  

I was gone to Europe all last week so I haven't had a chance to look over my accounts now, but I'd guess I am back to $31-32, hedges and all.  Big pullbacks in some unhedged positions, no pullback in some hedged positions, other hedges working well...  overall...

Its going to $40-50 in the fullness of time, my account that is. 

The forward p/e of my account en summe is <10, the price/book of my account en summe is still well under 1, etc.  Price/normalized earnings is probably 6-7.  

With the exception of LVS and WYNN, which are hedged positions, I really don't have any stocks that are "expensive" by conventional metrics.  

volatility indeed.  I don't think volatility in the stocks I hold is going to ebb anytime soon.  Many or even most of them were down 90% at the bottoms from their previous highs, and the road from said bottoms to said previous highs is ...  not going to be a smooth one.

If this pullback goes much deeper, I'm going to do something fairly rash and de-diversify my portfolio and focus it on my 10 or 20 best bets.

Some of my holdings... even ones I've touted a time or two here on CAPs, are causing me to wonder if they are really "best bets" or not.  Not RJET though, thats a "best bet"!


Report this comment
#20) On November 03, 2009 at 4:58 AM, checklist34 (98.59) wrote:

alaska, thats cool. 

I have noticed several times in reading web forums, including caps, and also hobby forums, if at times people that aren't deeply involved in the forum get as much or more from it as others.

you'll see someone who doesn't frequently post pop on, ask a question, get admonished by somebody or other...  and pop on with another quesiton sometime later.

As if for some people owning a certain car or amplifier or whatever is a big deal and they pour into these forums, for other people they just want an answer as to how to hook it up or check the tranny fluid, and they really don't mind if somebody wants to hit them with the old "use the search function you idiot", they just hope somebody else will post up the answer to save them the time...  

good luck!

Report this comment
#21) On November 03, 2009 at 2:18 PM, ahobbs (< 20) wrote:


As to what will the stock market do in the next couple of weeks, I can tell you with 100% certainty what will happen.  To quote JP Morgan when asked the same question: "It will fluctuate"...

Report this comment
#22) On November 05, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Schwab711 (98.74) wrote:


I agree with you about RJET being one of the most undervalued companies in the US market. What do you think of its quarterly results. I'm a huge fan. Net income (without the acquisition of Midwest) is up $2M yoy. Let me know what you think as I know you were one of the first All-Stars to recommend it.


Report this comment
#23) On November 06, 2009 at 4:30 PM, TigerPack1 (33.60) wrote:


We were having a discussion about starting a group mutual fund, and portefeuille mentioned you were trying to start a hedge fund.

I don't know if this link will bring you to the discussion today, but you can email me at if you would like to talk about this idea with me.  I am a former investment advisor during the 1990s, and am looking at different ways to get back into real world investment management.  You can read some of the information at GV's website today: on the chat room tab.  Lounge 23, 15:27 or so for the beginning entries.  The link below may take you directly there:

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners