Real Estate

Vancouver housing bubble?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 19th, 2019 4:46 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Guru
Jan 27, 2006
10684 posts
4239 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
intr3peed wrote:
Jun 18th, 2016 8:17 am
Really the same curve either way. Demand can be met with more supply if you have the land.
It is but adding supply has a built in delay as things need to get zoned, infrastructure added (ie - roads, water, fire and police...), and then things need to get built - a multi-year solution.
intr3peed wrote:
Jun 18th, 2016 8:17 am
The condo market tip-toed with the SFH market when there weren't SFH constraints in the picture. All those condo families then bore their own kids, and BANG, everyone wanted a backyard/piece of land. Add the investment flows and you have the current 'crisis'.
Exactly. The system was in more or less a natural flow - families moved out of condos and into SFR and others in SFR moved into condos in a reasonable rate difference (ie. sometimes more one way and sometimes more the other). It's the high rate of investment flows is what knocked everything off the normal situation as any market will have some investment flows (ie. 'normal' landlords who buys extra properties and rents them out). So, the 'easiest' and probably safest and quickest way to get back into a normal flow is to focus on the high rate of investment.
Member
Sep 1, 2013
402 posts
95 upvotes
craftsman wrote:
Jun 19th, 2016 1:34 am
It is but adding supply has a built in delay as things need to get zoned, infrastructure added (ie - roads, water, fire and police...), and then things need to get built - a multi-year solution.



Exactly. The system was in more or less a natural flow - families moved out of condos and into SFR and others in SFR moved into condos in a reasonable rate difference (ie. sometimes more one way and sometimes more the other). It's the high rate of investment flows is what knocked everything off the normal situation as any market will have some investment flows (ie. 'normal' landlords who buys extra properties and rents them out). So, the 'easiest' and probably safest and quickest way to get back into a normal flow is to focus on the high rate of investment.
As I said, investment flows are part of the demand, but, more importantly, investors don't chase any random real estate market. If that was the reason, all Canadian housing markets would go up similarly. Or, all structure types would go up similarly. That the two most supply-constrained markets - and the land-hogging SFH structures - have gone up the most tells you that investment flows are chasing land values. Investors can see where there is a supply issue. None of Singapore, HK, London, NYC, SF, etc. have had "abnormal" demand, yet they are all pricier than Vancouver and Toronto because land comes at a premium. You can't add SFH supply in these markets, period. On the margins, yes, but to meet the demand, nope. The system was in a balance until it wasn't. It no longer is and will likely never be.

As for why this has happened in the last 5 years in the two Canadian cities, it is a combo of little supply, low local borrowing rates, strong local demographic demand, AND strong investment flows (due to a cheaper CAD and flight of capital from volatile international markets). Hard-stopping the investment flows may get rid of the insane jumps, but it won't bring the prices down. Too many people queued up to buy the SFH properties, esp. in Toronto. Owners who are also occupants don't have to sell. There is no alternative product.

Perhaps the un(der)occupied properties (eps. in Vancouver) may come on to the market if (A) regulators intervene, (B) CAD goes back up, (C) yields rise globally across asset classes, and (D) China fixes its myriad of economic issues. This list is in a descending order of probability but an ascending order of impact.
Sr. Member
Jan 30, 2006
853 posts
286 upvotes
intr3peed wrote:
Jun 19th, 2016 3:31 am
As I said, investment flows are part of the demand, but, more importantly, investors don't chase any random real estate market. If that was the reason, all Canadian housing markets would go up similarly. Or, all structure types would go up similarly. That the two most supply-constrained markets - and the land-hogging SFH structures - have gone up the most tells you that investment flows are chasing land values. Investors can see where there is a supply issue. None of Singapore, HK, London, NYC, SF, etc. have had "abnormal" demand, yet they are all pricier than Vancouver and Toronto because land comes at a premium. You can't add SFH supply in these markets, period. On the margins, yes, but to meet the demand, nope. The system was in a balance until it wasn't. It no longer is and will likely never be.

As for why this has happened in the last 5 years in the two Canadian cities, it is a combo of little supply, low local borrowing rates, strong local demographic demand, AND strong investment flows (due to a cheaper CAD and flight of capital from volatile international markets). Hard-stopping the investment flows may get rid of the insane jumps, but it won't bring the prices down. Too many people queued up to buy the SFH properties, esp. in Toronto. Owners who are also occupants don't have to sell. There is no alternative product.

Perhaps the un(der)occupied properties (eps. in Vancouver) may come on to the market if (A) regulators intervene, (B) CAD goes back up, (C) yields rise globally across asset classes, and (D) China fixes its myriad of economic issues. This list is in a descending order of probability but an ascending order of impact.
Basically what you say 'this time is different'
Deal Guru
Jan 27, 2006
10684 posts
4239 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
I don't think this time is any different once the external forces are brought back into reason.

As for people queuing up to buy, we have to look at who is actually in the queue.

A while back I posted a sample set of mortgage calculations for an 'average' SFR in Vancouver. The average house price in Vancouver is 1.4 million during the month of April 2016. At that price with a $70,000 down payment, monthly mortgage payments on a 5 year fixed would be in the neighbour hood of $5,951 per month in after tax dollars. If you work backwards from that amount to how much annual income a buyer should have and still be comfortable, the buyer would need approx $300,000 in gross household income. Considering that the average annual gross family income in Canada is just under $50,000, the average family isn't included. If you look at university educated professionals (or high demand skilled trades), you can probably bump the gross income range upwards of $100,000 to $150,000 annually which means that they still can't afford to buy a SFR in Vancouver. So, most first time home buyers are out of the mix for people queuing up to buy.

How about if they have an existing smallish condo (ie a starter condo) that they want to upgrade from? Let's assume that they have $300,000 in equity on the condo so they can apply that amount to the down payment of the average house in Vancouver. Therefore, instead of a $70,000 down payment, we are looking at $300,000. That would still mean that they would have a monthly payment of $4,922... Working backwards again, a buyer would need approx. $260,000 in gross household income. At $260,000, that would exclude most young families looking to upgrade from their small condo into a house to be in the queue for a SFR. BTW. I took the $300,000 by using half of the median selling price of a condo in April 2016 in Vancouver.

The only people which are left to really be in the queue are the house owners looking to move to another house and willing to either pay the difference or receive the difference (ie 'upgrading' or 'downgrading') or those who are independently wealthy who don't have to worry about income or monthly payments.

NB- All calculations were done using the BMO online mortgage and affordability calculators using as many of the default settings as possible.
Member
Sep 1, 2013
402 posts
95 upvotes
craftsman wrote:
Jun 19th, 2016 8:32 pm
I don't think this time is any different once the external forces are brought back into reason.

As for people queuing up to buy, we have to look at who is actually in the queue.

A while back I posted a sample set of mortgage calculations for an 'average' SFR in Vancouver. The average house price in Vancouver is 1.4 million during the month of April 2016. At that price with a $70,000 down payment, monthly mortgage payments on a 5 year fixed would be in the neighbour hood of $5,951 per month in after tax dollars. If you work backwards from that amount to how much annual income a buyer should have and still be comfortable, the buyer would need approx $300,000 in gross household income. Considering that the average annual gross family income in Canada is just under $50,000, the average family isn't included. If you look at university educated professionals (or high demand skilled trades), you can probably bump the gross income range upwards of $100,000 to $150,000 annually which means that they still can't afford to buy a SFR in Vancouver. So, most first time home buyers are out of the mix for people queuing up to buy.

How about if they have an existing smallish condo (ie a starter condo) that they want to upgrade from? Let's assume that they have $300,000 in equity on the condo so they can apply that amount to the down payment of the average house in Vancouver. Therefore, instead of a $70,000 down payment, we are looking at $300,000. That would still mean that they would have a monthly payment of $4,922... Working backwards again, a buyer would need approx. $260,000 in gross household income. At $260,000, that would exclude most young families looking to upgrade from their small condo into a house to be in the queue for a SFR. BTW. I took the $300,000 by using half of the median selling price of a condo in April 2016 in Vancouver.

The only people which are left to really be in the queue are the house owners looking to move to another house and willing to either pay the difference or receive the difference (ie 'upgrading' or 'downgrading') or those who are independently wealthy who don't have to worry about income or monthly payments.

NB- All calculations were done using the BMO online mortgage and affordability calculators using as many of the default settings as possible.
The devil is in the details. If you look at the monthly stats published by REGBV and glance at page 1 of 14 (just after the news release), you will see the prices and, more importantly, price changes over time. LINK.

Look at the price changes for the single-family detached in GVA. Prices have increased by 130% over the last 10 years and 64% over the last 5. This tells us that other than the jump in the last one year, prices have moved pretty much consistently over the last 10 years. It means, then, people who bought their properties over the last 10 years are now well-entrenched in the economy (one way or the other). Hard-stopping investment flows at this point is not going to suddenly push these folks to leave GVA.

Let's look at page 2 of 14. Let's assume a 2.5%, 5-year fixed mortgage and 30-year amortization.

The average condo is worth $485K, up from $315K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$200K today. Using a household income of $60K for this demographic and $200K of equity, you get buying power of ~$650K.

The average townhome is worth $632K, up from $373K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$300K today. Using a household income of $80K for this demographic and $300K of equity, you get buying power of ~$900K.

Back to page 1 of 14.

The average detached in Port Coquitlam is worth $906K, up from $451K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$500K today. Using a household income of $100K for this demographic and $500K of equity, you get buying power of ~$1,250K.

The average detached in Burnaby East is worth $1,238K, up from $565K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$750K today. Using a household income of $100K for this demographic and $750K of equity, you get buying power of ~$1,500K.

The average detached in Burnaby North is worth $1,572K, up from $627K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$950K today. Using a household income of $100K for this demographic and $950K of equity, you get buying power of ~$1,700K.

And there we go. The condo owner is going to sell his/her condo and buy a townhouse. The townhouse seller is going to buy a detached in Port Coquitlam. The Port Coquitlam seller is going to buy it from the seller in Burnaby East. The Burnaby East guy will buy it from the seller in Burnaby North. And voila .... it's Christmas. That $1.7MM buying power can now get you into anywhere in GVA except in Vancouver West and West Vancouver. So, really, the only markets significantly affected by turning off the foreign cash tap are those two. For every other market, there is a bridge (no pun).

And that's how the queue works. You could slow the queue down by slotting new supply in the middle - but absent that, the prices aren't going very far.
Sr. Member
Jan 30, 2006
853 posts
286 upvotes
intr3peed wrote:
Jun 19th, 2016 10:36 pm
The devil is in the details. If you look at the monthly stats published by REGBV and glance at page 1 of 14 (just after the news release), you will see the prices and, more importantly, price changes over time. LINK.

Look at the price changes for the single-family detached in GVA. Prices have increased by 130% over the last 10 years and 64% over the last 5. This tells us that other than the jump in the last one year, prices have moved pretty much consistently over the last 10 years. It means, then, people who bought their properties over the last 10 years are now well-entrenched in the economy (one way or the other). Hard-stopping investment flows at this point is not going to suddenly push these folks to leave GVA.

Let's look at page 2 of 14. Let's assume a 2.5%, 5-year fixed mortgage and 30-year amortization.

The average condo is worth $485K, up from $315K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$200K today. Using a household income of $60K for this demographic and $200K of equity, you get buying power of $693K.

The average townhome is worth $632K, up from $373K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$300K today. Using a household income of $80K for this demographic and $300K of equity, you get buying power of $958K.

Back to page 1 of 14.

The average detached in Port Coquitlam is worth $906K, up from $451K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$500K today. Using a household income of $100K for this demographic and $500K of equity, you get buying power of $1,326K.

The average detached in Burnaby East is worth $1,238K, up from $565K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$750K today. Using a household income of $100K for this demographic and $750K of equity, you get buying power of $1,573K.

The average detached in Burnaby North is worth $1,572K, up from $627K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$950K today. Using a household income of $100K for this demographic and $950K of equity, you get buying power of $1,772K.

And there we go. The condo owner is going to sell his/her condo and buy a townhouse. The townhouse seller is going to buy a detached in Port Coquitlam. The Port Coquitlam seller is going to buy it from the seller in Burnaby East. The Burnaby East guy will buy it from the seller in Burnaby North. And voila .... it's Christmas. That $1.8MM buying power can now get you into anywhere in GVA town except in Vancouver West and West Vancouver. So, really, the only markets significantly affected by turning off the foreign cash tap are those two. For every other market, there is a bridge.

And that's how the queue works. You could interrupt the queue by slotting new supply in the middle - but absent that, the prices aren't going very far.
Do you even understand transaction cost on selling 1572k and then buying 1.772k? so you say someone will go out of his mind and buy something for 1772k taking 7x leverage and you conveniently forgot 200k in transaction cost.
they won't be able to buy anything because transaction cost is 200k. your math is wrong.
what they can do is to sell and then buy the same house. they can't afford to move up. and even if they can they won't waste 200k on trnsaction

And that's exactly what realtors say - moving up doesn't happen at this prices

your math isn't sustainable even with current prices. But if prices say increase another 10% which will happen with current pace by the end of summer - it will be 10x leverage, and by winter probably 13x
Sr. Member
Jan 30, 2006
853 posts
286 upvotes
intr3peed wrote:
Jun 19th, 2016 10:36 pm
The devil is in the details. If you look at the monthly stats published by REGBV and glance at page 1 of 14 (just after the news release), you will see the prices and, more importantly, price changes over time. LINK.

Look at the price changes for the single-family detached in GVA. Prices have increased by 130% over the last 10 years and 64% over the last 5. This tells us that other than the jump in the last one year, prices have moved pretty much consistently over the last 10 years. It means, then, people who bought their properties over the last 10 years are now well-entrenched in the economy (one way or the other). Hard-stopping investment flows at this point is not going to suddenly push these folks to leave GVA.

Let's look at page 2 of 14. Let's assume a 2.5%, 5-year fixed mortgage and 30-year amortization.

The average condo is worth $485K, up from $315K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$200K today. Using a household income of $60K for this demographic and $200K of equity, you get buying power of $693K.

The average townhome is worth $632K, up from $373K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$300K today. Using a household income of $80K for this demographic and $300K of equity, you get buying power of $958K.

Back to page 1 of 14.

The average detached in Port Coquitlam is worth $906K, up from $451K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$500K today. Using a household income of $100K for this demographic and $500K of equity, you get buying power of $1,326K.

The average detached in Burnaby East is worth $1,238K, up from $565K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$750K today. Using a household income of $100K for this demographic and $750K of equity, you get buying power of $1,573K.

The average detached in Burnaby North is worth $1,572K, up from $627K in 2006. Say, that equity + own cash is ~$950K today. Using a household income of $100K for this demographic and $950K of equity, you get buying power of $1,772K.

And there we go. The condo owner is going to sell his/her condo and buy a townhouse. The townhouse seller is going to buy a detached in Port Coquitlam. The Port Coquitlam seller is going to buy it from the seller in Burnaby East. The Burnaby East guy will buy it from the seller in Burnaby North. And voila .... it's Christmas. That $1.8MM buying power can now get you into anywhere in GVA town except in Vancouver West and West Vancouver. So, really, the only markets significantly affected by turning off the foreign cash tap are those two. For every other market, there is a bridge.

And that's how the queue works. You could interrupt the queue by slotting new supply in the middle - but absent that, the prices aren't going very far.
Do you even understand transaction cost on selling 1572k and then buying 1.772k? so you say someone will go out of his mind and buy something for 1772k taking 8x leverage and you conveniently forgot 200k in transaction cost.
they won't be able to buy anything because transaction cost is 200k. your math is wrong.
what they can do is to sell and then buy the same house. they can't afford to move up. and even if they can they won't waste 200k on trnsaction

And that's exactly what realtors say - moving up doesn't happen at this prices

your math isn't sustainable even with current prices. But if prices say increase another 10% which will happen with current pace by the end of summer - it will be 10x leverage, and by winter probably 13x
Member
Sep 1, 2013
402 posts
95 upvotes
kashirin wrote:
Jun 19th, 2016 11:53 pm
Do you even understand transaction cost on selling 1572k and then buying 1.772k? so you say someone will go out of his mind and buy something for 1772k taking 8x leverage and you conveniently forgot 200k in transaction cost.
they won't be able to buy anything because transaction cost is 200k. your math is wrong.
what they can do is to sell and then buy the same house. they can't afford to move up. and even if they can they won't waste 200k on trnsaction

And that's exactly what realtors say - moving up doesn't happen at this prices

your math isn't sustainable even with current prices. But if prices say increase another 10% which will happen with current pace by the end of summer - it will be 10x leverage, and by winter probably 13x
Have you lost your mind? $200K in transaction costs?

Good lord. No wonder you guys are still renting.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 23, 2014
1682 posts
447 upvotes
Toronto, ON
intr3peed wrote:
Jun 20th, 2016 12:04 am
Have you lost your mind? $200K in transaction costs?

Good lord. No wonder you guys are still renting.
Yeah man what the hell is that? $200K transaction cost?? W@W...I guess we learn something new and ridiculous everyday.
Dual XEON E5-2696V4 | ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080Ti OC | 3X NEC PA301W | 64GB DDR4 ECC |1 TB Samsung 960 Pro
FreeNAS & Plex Server XEON E3 1265L V3 | Supermicro X10SAE | 16GB DDR3 ECC | 6 X 3TB HGST 7K4000 RAIDZ2 | 3 X 3TB HGST 7K4000 RAIDZ1
Sr. Member
Jan 30, 2006
853 posts
286 upvotes
traderjay wrote:
Jun 20th, 2016 12:21 am
Yeah man what the hell is that? $200K transaction cost?? W@W...I guess we learn something new and ridiculous everyday.
ridiculous is your analogy between Mercedes and detached housing

ok - so I give you ridiculous task
calculate transactions costs on selling 1552k house and buying 1772k house

and then prove it's not ridiculous to pay transaction cost to move up between those houses
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 23, 2014
1682 posts
447 upvotes
Toronto, ON
kashirin wrote:
Jun 20th, 2016 12:35 am
ridiculous is your analogy between Mercedes and detached housing

ok - so I give you ridiculous task
calculate transactions costs on selling 1552k house and buying 1772k house

and then prove it's not ridiculous to pay transaction cost to move up between those houses
I don't need to prove or calculate anything for you - because the transaction cost for my current house has a far lower fees (all inclusive) than the random number you came up with. I think you really need to do more homework on the details of an RE transaction or the dynamics behind it before embarrassing yourself more.
Dual XEON E5-2696V4 | ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080Ti OC | 3X NEC PA301W | 64GB DDR4 ECC |1 TB Samsung 960 Pro
FreeNAS & Plex Server XEON E3 1265L V3 | Supermicro X10SAE | 16GB DDR3 ECC | 6 X 3TB HGST 7K4000 RAIDZ2 | 3 X 3TB HGST 7K4000 RAIDZ1
Member
User avatar
Feb 23, 2004
371 posts
18 upvotes
My friend sold his house last week for 3.2 million. He is buying a condo for 600K in Richmond. He is set for retirement. Guy is 36 yo....
Deal Guru
Jan 27, 2006
10684 posts
4239 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
$200,000 to transact two real estate deals might be a bit much but there is value in what is being said as there are additional cost to any transaction that should go into the buying and selling price.

For the $1,557,000 property, generally commissions will work out to approx. $43,000 + GST using the commissions calculation on this site - http://www.mikestewart.ca/commission-ca ... or-sellers. Of course, there could be special deals and rebates but let's try to keep thing simple. Of course, there's probably going to be a few thousand in legal fees as for that amount of money, you don't want to DIY necessarily... And as well as the property transfer tax which would be approx $29,000. Don't forget about the fees associated with the mortgage... which would probably be a few thousand as well. And of course, the cost of physically moving... But to keep things simple, let's say there's no mortgage, you are moving yourself in a van, and you happened to be a lawyer so it's just commissions and taxes so the total would be $75,000.

For the $1,772,000 property, let's work on the same assumptions as above to keep thing simple. Commissions would $48,000 + GST and the property transfer tax would be approx $33,000 for a total of $84,000.

To move from the $1,557,000 to the $1,772,000 property would have a total transaction cost of just commissions and taxes of $159,000 without lawyers or bank fees split between the parties involved (ie. seller and buyer of each property). If you throw in the lawyers, the banks, and assorted miscellaneous fees, you would probably approach $200,000 in transactional cost split between the parties.

But we might be missing the most important point in this discussion of moving from one property to another... the rapid changes in prices. Let's say that the owner does and is able to upgrade from the 1.5 million dollar property to a 1.7 million dollar property. They have to start by either selling theirs first or buying the other first... they can't do both at the same time. Normally, in a normal market, it's not a big deal as there are few bidding wars, subjects can be used, prices are relatively stable and so forth. In the current environment, where those things aren't happening - bidding wars are the norm, subjects will cause you to lose the property, prices are not stable, the buyer might find themselves in a situation where they have sold their home but can't find another to close on that fits their budget in a relatively safe period of time.

Example - they sold the 1.5 million property and went looking for a property listed at 1.7 million only to find other bidders bidding the value out to 1.8 million or higher. So, now they are left with a choice, pay more or start looking at lower priced properties. At the same time, the property prices are going up so the longer they wait the smaller the upgrade becomes as they are closed on the theirs so they aren't going to get any more than 1.5 million while their target 1.7 million property is increasing with every month that goes by...
Deal Addict
Nov 26, 2005
3085 posts
249 upvotes
Vancouver
craftsman wrote:
Jun 20th, 2016 2:52 am
$200,000 to transact two real estate deals might be a bit much but there is value in what is being said as there are additional cost to any transaction that should go into the buying and selling price.

For the $1,557,000 property, generally commissions will work out to approx. $43,000 + GST using the commissions calculation on this site - http://www.mikestewart.ca/commission-ca ... or-sellers. Of course, there could be special deals and rebates but let's try to keep thing simple. Of course, there's probably going to be a few thousand in legal fees as for that amount of money, you don't want to DIY necessarily... And as well as the property transfer tax which would be approx $29,000. Don't forget about the fees associated with the mortgage... which would probably be a few thousand as well. And of course, the cost of physically moving... But to keep things simple, let's say there's no mortgage, you are moving yourself in a van, and you happened to be a lawyer so it's just commissions and taxes so the total would be $75,000.

For the $1,772,000 property, let's work on the same assumptions as above to keep thing simple. Commissions would $48,000 + GST and the property transfer tax would be approx $33,000 for a total of $84,000.

To move from the $1,557,000 to the $1,772,000 property would have a total transaction cost of just commissions and taxes of $159,000 without lawyers or bank fees split between the parties involved (ie. seller and buyer of each property). If you throw in the lawyers, the banks, and assorted miscellaneous fees, you would probably approach $200,000 in transactional cost split between the parties.

But we might be missing the most important point in this discussion of moving from one property to another... the rapid changes in prices. Let's say that the owner does and is able to upgrade from the 1.5 million dollar property to a 1.7 million dollar property. They have to start by either selling theirs first or buying the other first... they can't do both at the same time. Normally, in a normal market, it's not a big deal as there are few bidding wars, subjects can be used, prices are relatively stable and so forth. In the current environment, where those things aren't happening - bidding wars are the norm, subjects will cause you to lose the property, prices are not stable, the buyer might find themselves in a situation where they have sold their home but can't find another to close on that fits their budget in a relatively safe period of time.

Example - they sold the 1.5 million property and went looking for a property listed at 1.7 million only to find other bidders bidding the value out to 1.8 million or higher. So, now they are left with a choice, pay more or start looking at lower priced properties. At the same time, the property prices are going up so the longer they wait the smaller the upgrade becomes as they are closed on the theirs so they aren't going to get any more than 1.5 million while their target 1.7 million property is increasing with every month that goes by...
to be fair, you should only count 1 set of commission and 1 property transfer tax, plus legal and other small fees, say 80k in total.
the main thing that count is renovation in the new house, it can be 0 to $150k+ depending on condition.

in a market like this, it makes far more sense to confirm a bid first then do a fire sale...at worse, do a private bridge finance paying 15% apr for the closing gap.

Top

Thread Information

There are currently 2 users viewing this thread. (2 members and 0 guests)

CanadaJimmy, Motoss