Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

goldminingXpert (29.57)

The Market Is About To Plunge (Day 12, Vol 9)

Recs

33

May 11, 2009 – Comments (51) | RELATED TICKERS: GM , X

Just marking time today. We had a fine day today, reality returned in the banks as Meredith Whitney came on CNBC and reminded people that the laws of financial gravity have not yet been repealed. Hopefully we can get some followthrough tomorrow. Just need the Nasdaq to cooperate, it was intolerably bullish today.

Reality Index:

1,447.20 (+382.6)

51 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 11, 2009 at 5:51 PM, DeerHunter73 (73.11) wrote:

According to Bloomberg where you said you get some of your info, they stated today the S&P is trading at 12.9% forward p/e.You said it should be 14 whos wrong?

Report this comment
#2) On May 11, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Imperial1964 (97.91) wrote:

You get different numbers depending on if you subtract negative earnings or you throw them out of your calculations.

Report this comment
#3) On May 11, 2009 at 6:01 PM, motleyanimal (83.28) wrote:

Jeff Macke let it slip that he is short SPY today.

Report this comment
#4) On May 11, 2009 at 6:36 PM, StevesStox (61.55) wrote:

Thank goodness I didn't listen to your wisdom last Thursday when you suggested that investors short the market. Would have lost alot of money.

Report this comment
#5) On May 11, 2009 at 6:52 PM, goldminingXpert (29.57) wrote:

StevesStox, you'd actually be profitable. The market is lower now than it was on Thursday. Of course, to a feeble mind like yours, math is too grave a challenge. I specifically said in my Thursday post that the market was, at the time of my typing, at 914. Now the S&P closed at 909.

Report this comment
#6) On May 11, 2009 at 6:58 PM, ChrisGraley (29.87) wrote:

SteveStox, he didn't suggest that anybody else should do it. He just said that he was gonna do it.

BTW I did the same thing and actually started on Wednesday, but a lot of my picks didn't get started till Friday morning and I'm pretty close to where I started with 1 down day. I'm guessing that we have another one tommorrow as well which should give me a huge boost.

Report this comment
#7) On May 11, 2009 at 7:02 PM, goldminingXpert (29.57) wrote:

Chris: Actually I did suggest that people might follow me into a short position. As it turns out, the market is now .5% lower than it was on Thursday so one has a small profit if they followed my advice. Of course, SteveStox, or should I refer to him as Drummmnutt or any of his numerous aliases, appears incapable of basic math.

---

You know you're onto something when people decide to set up multiple accounts to bash you.

Report this comment
#8) On May 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, DeerHunter73 (73.11) wrote:

GMX i said on Friday the market was going to sell off today and go back up on tuesday. As far as being profitable, ONLY SHORTERS WOULD HAVE MADE MONEY Something else that should be banned. But thats another story!

Report this comment
#9) On May 11, 2009 at 7:26 PM, ChrisGraley (29.87) wrote:

Sorry, selective memory I guess.

BTW, GMX thanks for the info on Ultralongs portfolio, I would still be hunting and pecking with ETF's if not for that. 

Report this comment
#10) On May 12, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Ecomike (< 20) wrote:

I looked at the 10 year SPX chart again, and noted that the SPX rallied for 6 months straight in 2003, and recovered about 80% of the losses it sustained since the 2000-01 peaks. That leaves us about 3.5 months to go for this rally.

 Interesting similarities in the two chart periods, and in the monetization of US debt in both periods. The 9/11 market crash lasted 2 years from 2001-2003, same period of time we just went through, 2007-09, both about 24 months long.

 History does sometimes repeat itself. The only question is will it repeat a bear or bull run from here. 

Report this comment
#11) On May 12, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Ecomike (< 20) wrote:

Three of my stocks were up big time today. One was up 200%, a zombie Biotech no less, XTLBY. I am still 50% long, 50% cash, and holding long term.  Will not sell from here, only buying on any major pull backs, which I don't expect to see.

Report this comment
#12) On May 12, 2009 at 12:24 AM, goldminingXpert (29.57) wrote:

Ecomike: In the Great Depression, the market never made it back to the 200DMA. We're just a few points away. Are we closer in terms of economic health to 1932 or 2003? I'd say 1932, but that's a question one must answer for oneself. History can support many readings of a chart, so be cautious...

Report this comment
#13) On May 12, 2009 at 12:57 AM, MGDG (35.40) wrote:

The rally in 2003 was after a retest of the Oct 02' low. It was a sucessful retest and the Bull market began anew. The low in Nov 08' did not hold this past March, so your comparing Apples to Oranges. We should either see a sucessful retest of the Mar 09' low or an unsecessful retest. I would prefer the former, but will be prepared for either senario.

Report this comment
#14) On May 12, 2009 at 4:22 AM, TMFUltraLong (99.95) wrote:

I'm riding the FAZ train. I might be riding the UltraLong perspective but I'm no dumb dumb, I got into FAZ late last week and im ready for the fall. S&P 855 is the next stop at the station.

Report this comment
#15) On May 12, 2009 at 7:26 AM, ttboydxb (28.88) wrote:

Go FAZ Go!   Averaged down to $8.90, reality should start to take hold shortly, it always does (sometimes after a looong time) Unfortunately it will start from financial stock investors becoming aware that Bernake and Geithner have just led them to the slaughterhouse.  Those crooks/clowns should be ashamed of how they artificially drove up bank stocks to help their fellow Lamborghini Club members sell more toilet paper (stocks) to Joe the plumber.

Report this comment
#16) On May 12, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Matt8265 (26.47) wrote:

I don't know how you hope to get out of a 8.90 Faz position... I'm at 6.70 and think I might never see light. 

Report this comment
#17) On May 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, DeerHunter73 (73.11) wrote:

Ecomike: In the Great Depression, the market never made it back to the 200DMA. We're just a few points away. Are we closer in terms of economic health to 1932 or 2003? I'd say 1932, but that's a question one must answer for oneself. History can support many readings of a chart, so be cautious...

This Relly shows how young you are gmx. When you start to compare this recession with 1932. Lets start with the facts.

http://www.greatdepression2.org/wst_page3.html

Before you start comparing APPLES TO ORANGES have the facts on a RECESSION VERSASA THE GREAT DEPRESSION. There is no comparrison between the 2.

In 1932 25.5% of the U.S was unemployed.

2009 8.9%. of the U.S is currently unemployed

in order to even come close to the 1932 Depression, 75,000,000 people would have to be unemployed. None of us will ever see those numbers. When your entire state starts eating out of trashcans and living in  boxs in central park then you can  START to compare 2009 with 1932.

 

 

Report this comment
#18) On May 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM, hall9999 (99.24) wrote:

DeerHunter - 75,000,000 ARE unemployed.  Of course, I don't know how many children, elderly, disabled, etc. you think would be looking for a job.  Unemployment figures aren't based on the total population (I assume you took 25% of the U.S. population of about 300M) it's based on the total workforce.  According to this from the Bureau of Labor Statistics the total workforce is about 154M so 25% of that would be about 39M.

Report this comment
#19) On May 12, 2009 at 9:41 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

dude. I have one posting name. Don't accuse me of having ailiases. I am glad that other people aren't following your horrible advice though. Your track record stinks, and your rationales (or lack of, ie today) are a joke.

I repeat, I do NOT have any ailiases, and I don't know why one would, or why someone would accuse someone of having one without any proof. Insecurity maybe???

Report this comment
#20) On May 12, 2009 at 10:21 AM, jamasony2 (< 20) wrote:

Zecco is out of SSO short inventory, haven't seen that before.

Report this comment
#21) On May 12, 2009 at 10:33 AM, DeerHunter73 (73.11) wrote:

Hall9999

Those numbers were based on TOTAL population during the great depression. Do your history work from then. Wasnt based on workforce in 1932. Our current unemplyment rate is 8.9% or 13.1 million people. the immigrant status here is also higher now. As soon as they figure out how to deport all of them the more jobs AMERICANS will have.

Report this comment
#22) On May 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM, UKIAHED (37.25) wrote:

 

Deerhunter

 

I think I would check my facts before making this statement:

 

the immigrant status here is also higher now. As soon as they figure out how to deport all of them the more jobs AMERICANS will have.

 

It turns out that:

 

Current immigration rates are moderate, even though America admitted more legal immigrants from 1991 to 2000 (between 10-11 million) than in any previous decade. In the most recent decade, the 10 million legal immigrants that settled in the U.S. represent an annual growth of only about one-third of 1% (as the U.S. population grew from 249 million to 281 million). By comparison, the highest previous decade was 1901-1910 when 8.8 million people arrived increasing the total U.S. population by 1 percent per year as the U.S. population grew from 76 to 92 million during that decade. Specifically, "nearly 15% of Americans were foreign-born in 1910, while in 1999, only about 10% were foreign-born."

This is from  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

 

And don’t give me that “illegal” immigrant argument.  I know too many employers personally that constantly complain that no one in a suit or factory blues come in to apply for the jobs that they have to offer.  They cannot even get college students to come in – it seems that $15/hour is beneath your average American…

 

Have a great day.

 

Ed

Report this comment
#23) On May 12, 2009 at 11:30 AM, UKIAHED (37.25) wrote:

Hall9999 I think I’ll take the unemployment item as well if that is OK

Deerhunter

Those numbers were based on TOTAL population during the great depression. Do your history work from then. Wasnt based on workforce in 1932.

OK – I’ll play along.  If the total unemployment is based upon those working versus the total populations then I get the following:

154,287,000 working - http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

+70,271,727 add in non-civilian and institutional (same URL)

304,059,727 total population - http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&tdim=true&q=us+population

(154,287,000+70,271,727 )/304,059,727=73.85% working population – then the balance 26.15% are currently unemployed.

And yet – the world has not ended.  In fact, these numbers come from the end of 2008 – where U3 was 5.8% - most economists believe that U3 at 6% is full employment.  Could be that there is a reason that we use the unemployment versus the workforce – NOT the TOTAL population… ;)

Ed

Report this comment
#24) On May 12, 2009 at 11:35 AM, DeerHunter73 (73.11) wrote:

You'll learn about history one day

Report this comment
#25) On May 12, 2009 at 11:48 AM, ttboydxb (28.88) wrote:

Matt8265

Just wait young grasshopper, FAZ will very soon move to double digits....  I'm thinking if things play out really bad I'll sell at $100  :)

Report this comment
#26) On May 12, 2009 at 11:58 AM, UKIAHED (37.25) wrote:

You'll learn about history one day.

 

That presupposes that someone will teach me – otherwise you may want to say “You’ll live thru history one day”.  I post these replies to show my view of the present versus history – should you want to teach me that I am wrong – please give me some facts or show me where my logic is wrong…

BTW – I personally do not believe that we will get anywhere close to the “Great Depression”. 

 

Ed

Report this comment
#27) On May 12, 2009 at 12:05 PM, hall9999 (99.24) wrote:

  I see your problem, deehunter.  The data in the link you provided is wrong (http://www.greatdepression2.org/wst_page3.html).

  The US population in 1932 was not 54M as your link states.  The population was 125M.

Try here or here.   Or go to the US census bureau to get it from the horses mouth.

Report this comment
#28) On May 12, 2009 at 12:08 PM, hall9999 (99.24) wrote:

http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-01.pdf

Report this comment
#29) On May 12, 2009 at 12:17 PM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

I see your problem, deehunter.  The data in the link you provided is wrong (http://www.greatdepression2.org/wst_page3.html).

  The US population in 1932 was not 54M as your link states.  The population was 125M.

It is amazing what people put on the internet!

(reminds me of "Most of Europe would fit in Texas" (see comments #1,3 here ...))

Report this comment
#30) On May 12, 2009 at 12:17 PM, DeerHunter73 (73.11) wrote:

Current stats http://www.greatdepression2.org/default.php

1932 great depression stats http://www.greatdepression2.org/wst_page3.html

 

1932 was the low point of the Great Depression.  It was the last year of the

     Hoover Administration:

 

Approx. US population:  54 million Unemployed (non-farm):  12 million

US population: 305,900,000 (as of March 1, 2009),  13 million

 increasing at the rate of 2.8 million per year

not counting immigrants!

Approximately one million legal immigrants are entering our country every year. 

That's almost 100,000 persons per month.

 

It's estimated that about 75% of these immigrants are seeking work here.  

 

Thus the economy needs to create about 75,000 new jobs each month

just to absorb the newly arriving immigrants.  

Report this comment
#31) On May 12, 2009 at 12:19 PM, UKIAHED (37.25) wrote:

He may also want to reiew here where it clearly states:

At the height of the Depression in 1933, 24.9% of the total work force or 11,385,000 people, were unemployed. 

Note total workforce - not total population.

 Ed

Report this comment
#32) On May 12, 2009 at 12:24 PM, DeerHunter73 (73.11) wrote:

S&P dropped below 900 today, Should see a nice rally by end of week or beginning of next week. That rally will push it to or over 1000

Report this comment
#33) On May 12, 2009 at 12:30 PM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

#30: Approx. US population:  54 million Unemployed 

could you please stop repeating this nonsense ...

Report this comment
#34) On May 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

sorry, should have been:

 

#30: Approx. US population:  54 million 

could you please stop repeating this nonsense ...

 

Report this comment
#35) On May 12, 2009 at 12:38 PM, DeerHunter73 (73.11) wrote:

This will be the last one of this post, Regardless how you look at it workforce or TOTAL population. If the total workforce was peaked in 1933 with more then 15,000,000 unemployed, or the TOTAL people living in the us was 54,000,000 word it however you like the number is the same!!!!!

IF 54,000,000 PEOPLE WERE LIVING IN THE US DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND 12,000,000 OF THOSE 54,000,000 WERE UNEMPLOYED. WHATS THE FINAL % OF THE POPULATION OUT OF WORK_________________? Simple math question..............Twist that however you like to fit your comments or statements, Those are the 2 factual numbers from the Great Depression.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/great_depression.pdf

Report this comment
#36) On May 12, 2009 at 12:45 PM, notsolilaznboi (38.26) wrote:

"Just wait young grasshopper, FAZ will very soon move to double digits....  I'm thinking if things play out really bad I'll sell at $100  :)"

wow $100? I don't think we will go anywhere near that. Back when FAZ hit $100, people believed that the banks and many other businesses would fail and the government would let them. Now that we know that the government is behind these insolvent institutions, that fear that everything is going to fail is no more. If anything, the government is going to manipulate things to try to make things look better.

In the near future, I'm hoping for a $14 FAZ at best? What do you guys think?

I'm averaged down to around $5.40.

I hope I am wrong and you are right. It would be AMAZING if Faz hit $100! (where it belongs)

 

BTW

"the immigrant status here is also higher now. As soon as they figure out how to deport all of them the more jobs AMERICANS will have."

 You sir, are retarded.What makes America so special is that people come from different backgrounds. Each culture brings something special to the table. Many Americans today believe they are better than the illegal immigrants. Those Americans are not willing to work many of those jobs. That's one of the problems with America. We feel that we are entitled to a job and a home yet many are not willing to work that hard for it. That we can somehow half ass at times and still be successful.The more jobs for Americans if people leave is getting old... You get what you work for. There are many exceptions, but where there is a will there is a way.

Report this comment
#37) On May 12, 2009 at 12:49 PM, notsolilaznboi (38.26) wrote:

 I'm not great with the market so I was wondering. What does the market dropping under 900 mean? If we end the day under 900 would we more likely have a rally or at least a small buying spree from investors? Or will the market ending under 900 cause investors to fear further drops and as a result bring the market down even lower? I guess what I'm asking is if we end the day under 900, will be more likely see 800 or 1000?

Report this comment
#38) On May 12, 2009 at 1:02 PM, clanza875 (34.46) wrote:

You cant win long term in FAZ. Its meant to be traded. Its one thing to play it in caps but with real money for longer than a few days is just dumb.

Report this comment
#39) On May 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, hall9999 (99.24) wrote:

  deerhunter - please read comment #27.  read it carefully.  read it slowly.  read it two or three times if you need to.  The TOTAL population in 1932 was !!!"125,000,000"!!! (one hundred twenty five million)

 

BTW, immigration is not a problem as long as GDP grows by at least the same amount (which it usually does).

Report this comment
#40) On May 12, 2009 at 1:05 PM, DeerHunter73 (73.11) wrote:

# 36 Retarted? I would have to agree you are. How many of them live in GOV housing, get food stamps, monthly gov checks because there to lazy to get a real job. that we Americans pay for? How many of them stand out front of the local lowes or home depot wanting to jump in trucks for work? Why is that? Because there here ilegally. Those my friend are the ones im refering to as they need to be deported. FL has a great law that one day i hope is reversed. If there feet touch american soil they can stay. WE americans continue on a hourly basis to feed 3rd world countries yet AMERICANS are starving. Send them home stop feeding every other country. Get rid of welfare and GOV HUD housing. See how many billions of dollars America saves yearly and see how many decide to go elsewhere or stay where there at since they cant get the HIGH LIFE FREE IN AMERICA THAT WE AMERICANS WORK SO HARD FOR AND THEY GET IT FOR FREE!

Report this comment
#41) On May 12, 2009 at 1:05 PM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

from here:

New York City became the most populous urbanized area in the world in early 1920s, overtaking London, and the metropolitan area surpassed the 10 million mark in early 1930s becoming the first megacity in human history.

IF 54,000,000 PEOPLE WERE LIVING IN THE US DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION (citing comment #35) then around 44 million were living outside the metropolitan area of New York. Wow, not very many left for the rest ...

Report this comment
#42) On May 12, 2009 at 1:18 PM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

"Just wait young grasshopper, FAZ will very soon move to double digits....  I'm thinking if things play out really bad I'll sell at $100  :)"

wow $100? I don't think we will go anywhere near that. Back when FAZ hit $100, people believed that the banks and many other businesses would fail and the government would let them. Now that we know that the government is behind these insolvent institutions, that fear that everything is going to fail is no more. If anything, the government is going to manipulate things to try to make things look better.

In the near future, I'm hoping for a $14 FAZ at best? What do you guys think?

It would really make more sense (see comment #20 here) to talk about "targets" for the underlying, the "Russell 1000 Financial Services Index".

Report this comment
#43) On May 12, 2009 at 1:21 PM, notsolilaznboi (38.26) wrote:

" You cant win long term in FAZ. Its meant to be traded. Its one thing to play it in caps but with real money for longer than a few days is just dumb."

 I know that holding FAZ long is bad due to the decay but after this bear market rally, I feel that it is worth it to hold for now. The chances of the market going down seem to be greater than it going up. Because FAZ tracks the returns and the movement of the financial index, I was hoping to make a couple bucks off of it. My question was not if I would win in the long term, it was what people think will happen to the market over the next couple days/weeks.Obviously, GMX thinks that the market will tank (which I hope it does) but just curious what others think.

"# 36 Retarted? I would have to agree you are. How many of them live in GOV housing, get food stamps, monthly gov checks because there to lazy to get a real job. that we Americans pay for? How many of them stand out front of the local lowes or home depot wanting to jump in trucks for work? Why is that? Because there here ilegally. Those my friend are the ones im refering to as they need to be deported. FL has a great law that one day i hope is reversed. If there feet touch american soil they can stay. WE americans continue on a hourly basis to feed 3rd world countries yet AMERICANS are starving. Send them home stop feeding every other country. Get rid of welfare and GOV HUD housing. See how many billions of dollars America saves yearly and see how many decide to go elsewhere or stay where there at since they cant get the HIGH LIFE FREE IN AMERICA THAT WE AMERICANS WORK SO HARD FOR AND THEY GET IT FOR FREE!"

 Illegal immigrants are an integral part of America. No matter what you say. In the current state, America would crumble without them. In this consumer economy, they do what many Americans are not willing to do for prices that many Americans need people to work for. Many small businesses use illegal immigrants not because they want to, but because that is all they can afford. Illegal immigrants are the bottom that support many. If many of the small businesses did not have illegal immigrants, they would have to close because for some, paying $15+ an hour on top of other benefits for someone to lift boxes is too much. These immigrants are blamed during the bad times because "Americans" don't have jobs but what you don't realize is that they are the reason that many business owners in America DO have jobs.When you are willing to work for $7 an hour with no benefits come talk to me. I will gladly introduce you to people that need hard workers for cheap and those people are AMERICAN business owners that rely on illegal immigrants to do what other Americans are not willing to do. Don't pass the blame for things that were not created by these poor people. They are not the problem. People at the top of corporate America are the problem.

Report this comment
#44) On May 12, 2009 at 1:23 PM, ttboydxb (28.88) wrote:

I see similarities between today and with the March drop, I think we knew at that time that these banks were already "too big to fail", but that didn't stop everyone from dumping the Financials because they are absolutely toxic. FAZ hit over $100 then, and if you choose to believe that we have NOT found a bottom yet, and the S&P will drop below 666, I can see FAZ rally quite a bit. 

 

So patiently waiting for all the calls of "we're now in a bull market" to go sour. Won't be surprised to get close to 666 again, a lot less people with jobs today then 3 months ago (and a LOT of them have mortgages they won't be able to pay, heck even John Gotti's daughter is behind $650,000 in mortgage payments and now faces forclosure), especially if you believe Alstry!  Let FAZ swing 20% a day either way, no worries, not using margin for it, and have a LOT of Pepto Bismol for the stomach!!!   :)

 

My 0.02, and either way I hope no matter what strategy you use, we ALL manage to eek out a dollar or two from this messed up market...

Report this comment
#45) On May 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM, notsolilaznboi (38.26) wrote:

Yes portefeulle we could talk about the russell 1000 index because that is what FAZ tracks but I was just curious what others thought the market/FAZ would do during the short term. Just wanted a fun guess from people. I did see your comment on the $9 price target and I have done some rough analysis myself and from that, $14 seems outrageous. But, the thing about that is nothing makes sense right now. Anything could happen. =)

Report this comment
#46) On May 12, 2009 at 1:31 PM, notsolilaznboi (38.26) wrote:

"Let FAZ swing 20% a day either way, no worries, not using margin for it, and have a LOT of Pepto Bismol for the stomach!!!"

 I've given up being scared from watching FAZ. It's like gambling

Report this comment
#47) On May 12, 2009 at 1:34 PM, DeerHunter73 (73.11) wrote:

Ed. please read comment #27.  read it carefully.  read it slowly.  read it two or three times if you need to.  The TOTAL population in 1932 was !!!"125,000,000"!!! (one hundred twenty five million)

If your numbers accurate and the total unemployed was 12,000,00 the % would be 10 of total population using your numbers of course. Every anaylst whos crunched these numbers from that sad time in history has gone by total  population. Very few went with workforce. Peak unemplyment was reached in 1933 when it peaked at a little over 15,000,000, yet 25% were unemplyed. Numbers dont add up.

Report this comment
#48) On May 12, 2009 at 1:44 PM, hall9999 (99.24) wrote:

  Of course numbers don't add up if you use the wrong ones.   The population number I gave you was from the U.S. census bureau.  I even provided a link (in comment #28).

Report this comment
#49) On May 12, 2009 at 1:52 PM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

Of course numbers don't add up if you use the wrong ones.   The population number I gave you was from the U.S. census bureau.  I even provided a link (in comment #28).

I think somehow he knows how to do "copy and paste" but somehow refuses to "click and think" ...

Report this comment
#50) On May 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, UKIAHED (37.25) wrote:

Deerhunter

 

Every anaylst whos crunched these numbers from that sad time in history has gone by total  population.

 

Did you read post 31?  Did you click on the little blue word that was underlined and says “here”?  Every analyst who crunched these numbers most assuredly did not use total population.  Even back in the “dark ages” of the 1930s – economists knew that to take the total population would screw up your numbers.  Why would you want to take into account children, disabled, elderly?  What use would that number be?

I give up – if you wish to believe that only 54 million souls resided in the US in the 1930s based upon the data of just one website – then there is nothing I can do to teach you history.  So be it.  I wish you success with your investments.  I will not be changing mine based upon your information/interpretation.

Have a great day.

 

Ed 

Report this comment
#51) On May 12, 2009 at 3:03 PM, portefeuille (99.60) wrote:

funniest discussion I have read here in a very long time, I am still laughing/giggling ...

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement