Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-08-2009, 05:02 PM   #161
Confused about dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3
I enjoyed the Ventures "Wipe Out." I don't recall seeing them perform this. If I did, it is lost in the fog of time. The drummer is amazing - his hands a blur throught most of the song.
__________________

__________________
Jacey is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-08-2009, 06:45 PM   #162
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Lets just take one bank. Citigroup. Currently they have almost $800B of debt and preferred outstanding. That debt would become nearly worthless in a bankruptcy. It would be like extracting all of TARP in one single day. That default blows a hole in the balance sheet of other large insurance companies, pension funds, and banks. Do they have the capital to survive that hit? Close them down too?

Then lets move on to Citigroup's other $1,000,000,000,000.00 in liabilities. How many companies and countries get taken down when Citi defaults on those? To put this in perspective, Citigroup's liabilities are roughly the size of Italy's GDP.

Remember when folks thought it might be O.K. to let Lehman go? Before money market funds started breaking the buck, before the comercial paper market shut down, and before our entire financial system faced a "run on the bank." Well Citigroup is 3 times larger than Lehman.

Bank of America, the next big bank in line for Shelbyville, is only about 7% smaller than Citigroup.

The financial world ends the day we decide to take Mr. Shelby's advice.
I think this is how it would work with Citibank - it isn't letting them go bankrupt but what was done previously.

Hussman Funds - Weekly Market Comment: The Economy Needs Coordination, Not Money, From the Government - February 23, 2009

For example, throwing government money at financial institutions that are insolvent simply gives taxpayers a loss that should be borne by the bondholders of that financial institution. I can't stress emphatically enough that the largest bank failure in U.S. history – Washington Mutual – was arranged last year with absolutely NO cost to the government, and no loss to the bank's customers. What happened there was exactly what I've been advocating since the Bear Stearns crisis: the government took Wa-Mu into receivership, wiped out the stockholders and most of the bondholders, sold the bank's assets along with the customer liabilities to J.P. Morgan for $1.9 billion, and handed those proceeds over as partial recovery for the senior bondholders. For more details on this sort of transaction, see the March 31, 2008 comment What Congress should Understand About the Bear Stearns Deal, and the September 22, 2008 comment, An Open Letter to Congress Regarding the Current Financial Crisis.
Take a look at Citibank's balance sheet as of the third quarter of 2008. The company had about $2 trillion in assets, versus about $132 billion in shareholder equity, for a gross leverage ratio of about 16-to-1. That's not a comfortable figure, because it indicates that a decline of about 6% in those assets would wipe out Citibank's equity and make the bank technically insolvent. Unfortunately, we saw credit default spreads screaming higher last week, while the bank's stock dropped below $2 a share, so evidently the market is deeply concerned about the possible immediacy of that outcome.
But keep looking at the liability side of Citibank's balance sheet. There is over $360 billion in long-term debt to the company's bondholders, and another $200 billion in shorter term borrowings. None of that is customer money. That puts the total capital available to absorb losses at $132 + $360 + $200 = $692 billion, which is about 35% of the $2 trillion in assets carried by Citibank. That's a huge cushion for customers, who are unlikely to lose even if Citibank becomes insolvent. Should that occur, the proper response of government will not be to defend Citi's bondholders at taxpayer expense, but rather, to take Citi into receivership, wipe out the shareholders and most of the bondholders, and sell the assets along with the liabilities to customers to another institution.
__________________

__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 08:46 PM   #163
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by dex View Post
I can't stress emphatically enough that the largest bank failure in U.S. history Ė Washington Mutual Ė was arranged last year with absolutely NO cost to the government, and no loss to the bank's customers. What happened there was exactly what I've been advocating since the Bear Stearns crisis: the government took Wa-Mu into receivership, wiped out the stockholders and most of the bondholders, sold the bank's assets along with the customer liabilities to J.P. Morgan for $1.9 billion, and handed those proceeds over as partial recovery for the senior bondholders.
Except when the government did that the market immediately began puking the equity, preferred, and bonds of every other questionable financial institution under the assumption they were going to get wiped out too. Without the ability to raise equity, preferred or debt financing every company eventually dies. Financials do so at an alarmingly rapid rate.

It becomes a pretty easy thing for the market to single out the weakest of the herd and aggressively sell their securities. Once that firm dies then the next one on the list gets targeted. Rinse, repeat.

There is a reason the government didn't do to Wachovia what it did to Ma-Mu and why it tried it's best to preserve equity value at Citi. It's because the Ma-Mu transaction was a failure.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 08:49 PM   #164
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha View Post
You don't have them go under, you nationalize them and then sell them. If there is a negative value, then the government either helps contribute capital or it pull out some of the debt and deals with that.
That is what we currently have with Citi in everything but name.

And the Sweden example isn't entirely appropriate. They had three banks. We have 8,300. You can nationalize three banks. Where do you draw the line when you have 8,300 knowing that the market will target for extinction every single one that is even remotely in a gray area?
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 08:51 PM   #165
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikerdude View Post
Anybody know if the credit default swaps (written on Citi) have to be paid if the government takes over Citigroup or are they wiped out.
It's highly technical and fact specific but in all likelihood a nationalization would be a triggering event under the contracts.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 06:16 PM   #166
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
That is what we currently have with Citi in everything but name.

And the Sweden example isn't entirely appropriate. They had three banks. We have 8,300. You can nationalize three banks. Where do you draw the line when you have 8,300 knowing that the market will target for extinction every single one that is even remotely in a gray area?
I understand the difference. What is the alternative?
__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 08:30 PM   #167
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha View Post
I understand the difference. What is the alternative?
Unfortunately you're witnessing the alternative. The government prevents the wheels from absolutely coming off the financial system. Smaller institutions are restructured like normal. Systemically large institutions are given time and capital to shed assets and earn their way out of the mess.

Unless there is any doubt about this, here is part of Bernanke's response to a question earlier this week:

Quote:
RUBENSTEIN: How would you say the Federal Reserve today is going things differently than the Federal Reserve you studied during the Great Depression?

BERNANKE: . . . There are many people in economics who say, "Well, you can let large financial firms fail. The market will take care of it," or "These effects are second order."

I hope that view is no longer seriously maintained -- (laughter)

. . . To respond to your question, I learned basically two lessons from my studies of the depression. The first is that monetary policy needs to be supportive, not contractionary. . . .

The second lesson is that -- to reiterate what I said before, is that when the financial system breaks down, becomes highly unstable, then that has very severe adverse effects on the economy.

Once again, this is something that was not handled. The Federal Reserve did not intervene to stop the failure of about a third of all the banks in the United States. Globally, there were massive bank failures. I think perhaps the most critical, in May of 1931, the Creditanstalt, which was one of the largest banks in Europe, failed, which generated a wave of financial crisis around the world. Up till early 1931, arguably the 1929 downturn was just a ordinary -- severe but ordinary downturn. It was the financial crises and the collapse of banks and other institutions in late 1930 and early 1931 that made the Great Depression great.

And so we must have a commitment to stabilize our banking system, to prevent the failures of any large systemically critical firms, and, going forward, to find stronger rules, regulations, mechanisms to make sure we're not put in this situation where we are dealing with these "too big to fail" firms, which is obviously very detrimental to the market discipline and to the functioning of the economy in the longer term.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 08:40 PM   #168
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Unfortunately you're witnessing the alternative. The government prevents the wheels from absolutely coming off the financial system. Smaller institutions are restructured like normal. Systemically large institutions are given time and capital to shed assets and earn their way out of the mess.

Unless there is any doubt about this, here is part of Bernanke's response to a question earlier this week:
Interesting. How do we prevent the zombie bank issue?
__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2009, 12:43 PM   #169
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Gotadimple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,761
Well, federal agencies can make policy, but I suspect Bernanke is looking to Congress to make law, and then administer that law through policy. I would hope, though, that we seek out the EU and the IMF or other such agencies to find a global regulatory solution. As he pointed out, a problem with the banks in one country, if sufficiently large and if that country has a larger economy in the world rankings, can affect the entire world.

In 1930, it was Germany's banks. In 2009, . . .
__________________
Only got A dimple, would have preferred 2!
Gotadimple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2009, 08:20 PM   #170
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha View Post
Interesting. How do we prevent the zombie bank issue?
When faced with a no win situation, what do you do?

You lose.

But I'm a bit more optimistic than that. I don't think we'll have a big problem with zombie banks. One reason is that the core banking business is incredibly profitable now. Banks are borrowing at government guaranteed rates (essentially free in the short end) and lending it back out in to an environment that has ridiculous credit spreads on top of a very steep yield curve. Bank of America today said it expects its business to generate $50B in profits before provisions. A couple of years of profits like that will fix a whole host of problems caused by bad legacy assets.

We're also not entirely dependent on banks, zombie or otherwise, to finance our economy the way Japan was/is. Capital markets play a much larger role here. And while they're a bit dysfunctional and panicked right now, there is no reason to think that is permanent (provided we don't let the whole system come crashing down to satisfy either political orthodoxy or populist rage). Certainly some of the excesses are gone forever, but I don't foresee the economy being capital constrained over the long, or even intermediate, term.

Finally, many companies are rendered too big to fail today because of the fragile state of the economy. Absent the massive credit bubble that weakened all financial institutions, we probably could have shouldered Lehman's bankruptcy without too much of a problem - assuming it was a one off event. A couple of years from now, if Citi and others are still basket cases, it's completely possible that they could get wound down without the same impact that would be felt today.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2009, 10:10 AM   #171
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,492
Yep - if it hadn't been for the ridiculous 30x to 40x leverage coupled with the CDSs, we probably could have let quite a few big ones fail and not had a crisis impact on the rest of the economy. If we get one thing out of this (I hope we get more), I hope we, once again, restrict the amount of leverage with which these "too big" financial institutions can play roulette.

Besides the leverage restrictions which were lifted in by the SEC in 2004, I suspect part of what the Glass-Steagal act prevented was financial institutions becoming too big to fail. AIG would be an example.

Audrey
__________________
audreyh1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2009, 10:16 AM   #172
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
Besides the leverage restrictions which were lifted in by the SEC in 2004, I suspect part of what the Glass-Steagal act prevented was financial institutions becoming too big to fail. AIG would be an example.
It also reduced the cross-contamination among the financials. Now if investment banks get sick, for example, they can more easily take community lenders, brokerages and insurers down with them. Under Glass-Steagall there was considerably less cross-contamination.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2009, 10:33 AM   #173
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Once again, this is something that was not handled. The Federal Reserve did not intervene to stop the failure of about a third of all the banks in the United States. Globally, there were massive bank failures. I think perhaps the most critical, in May of 1931, the Creditanstalt, which was one of the largest banks in Europe, failed, which generated a wave of financial crisis around the world. Up till early 1931, arguably the 1929 downturn was just a ordinary -- severe but ordinary downturn. It was the financial crises and the collapse of banks and other institutions in late 1930 and early 1931 that made the Great Depression great.
Only because deposits were not insured. It's not suprising that if everbody's bank is going under and individuals lose all their money, that you are going to have fundamental issues with your economy.

I'm skeptical that a collapse today would have the same result.
__________________
tulak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2009, 05:01 PM   #174
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 295
Ready to Loose 90% The sky is falling! Well Maybe for many.. but If retired persons just followed the 1st basic, they're ok...

> Keep 3 yrs COH for your Bills in MMkt and Shrt term Bonds
> Along with having the Homestead paid for
> Keep Credit Card Debts to a Minimum and get the lowest rate cards every yr
> Keep 1 car paid For, can finance the other

And Don't Lend $ to the Kids or Grandkids.. They can come Live with you instead..That usually changes their minds and go out a get extra Jobs or cut their Cable and Cell Phone Bills....LOL
__________________
Dennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2009, 08:16 PM   #175
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
harley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Following the nice weather
Posts: 6,433
Which of those four or five is the first basic?

Seems to me that after your 3 years is up you could be facing some serious issues. I have hopes but no faith that this will be over in 3 years. I think losing 90% of the rest (or even 50%) would be something worth worrying about. I don't disagree with your points, but oversimplifying isn't a good idea. There's worthwhile worrying to be done here. Tell him, Dawg!
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Will Rogers, or maybe Sam Clemens
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
harley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2009, 08:47 PM   #176
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki View Post
Only because deposits were not insured. It's not suprising that if everbody's bank is going under and individuals lose all their money, that you are going to have fundamental issues with your economy.

I'm skeptical that a collapse today would have the same result.
Insured deposits are a relatively small part of the financial universe.

In an earlier post I mentioned that Citigroup alone has $1,800,000,000,000.00 in liabilities. Only about $800B are deposits, not all of which are insured. That leaves a potential $1 trillion loss for various participants in the economy. What do you think will happen to the financial system once we know there are $1 trillion in losses to be recognized but we don't know where exactly they are? The answer . . . everything gets sold and all cash is withdrawn from everywhere. Every institution, financial or otherwise, would be suspect.

That $1 trillion doesn't even include the entire undfunded portion of revolving bank lines that Citi is on the hook for. Countless companies rely on these bank lines for liquidity. Without which they'd be hosed.

When Lehman went bankrupt companies started drawing down on their revolving credit lines to make sure they'd have access to the cash. Lehman was such a small player in the bank loan market compared to Citi (a "Money Center Bank"). If Citi went down, every bank on the planet would be flooded with requests to draw on the lines . . . a.k.a. a run on the bank.

Lights out, game over, thanks for playing.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2009, 09:31 PM   #177
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis View Post
And Don't Lend $ to the Kids or Grandkids.. They can come Live with you instead..That usually changes their minds and go out a get extra Jobs or cut their Cable and Cell Phone Bills....LOL
Actually, this mess has my mom more interested in gifting a portion of her estate to her heirs while alive than ever. I'm trying to convince her not to go overboard with it, but in all honesty good estate planning would probably dictate that she should start transferring some now. All bets are off on the estate tax exemption moving forward, I think, so maybe it's better to transfer some under the annual gift tax limit while we KNOW it's tax-free...
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2009, 12:49 PM   #178
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Insured deposits are a relatively small part of the financial universe.

In an earlier post I mentioned that Citigroup alone has $1,800,000,000,000.00 in liabilities. Only about $800B are deposits, not all of which are insured. That leaves a potential $1 trillion loss for various participants in the economy. What do you think will happen to the financial system once we know there are $1 trillion in losses to be recognized but we don't know where exactly they are? The answer . . . everything gets sold and all cash is withdrawn from everywhere. Every institution, financial or otherwise, would be suspect.

That $1 trillion doesn't even include the entire undfunded portion of revolving bank lines that Citi is on the hook for. Countless companies rely on these bank lines for liquidity. Without which they'd be hosed.

When Lehman went bankrupt companies started drawing down on their revolving credit lines to make sure they'd have access to the cash. Lehman was such a small player in the bank loan market compared to Citi (a "Money Center Bank"). If Citi went down, every bank on the planet would be flooded with requests to draw on the lines . . . a.k.a. a run on the bank.

Lights out, game over, thanks for playing.
Maybe, but I believe the losses would be a lot less than a trillion (not all of the liabilities are worthless). You'd let them fail, government would back up losses (instead of throwing cash at the problem) and take the hit once.

It wouldn't be pretty, but it also wouldn't prolong the pain as we are doing now...
__________________
tulak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 09:58 AM   #179
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
We have just gone through a decade and a half when it was easier to make money with financial tricks than it was making and selling real stuff. Not just for the banks, either. For lots of companies and people as well.

Most of thatís gone away. Itís not now so easy to just make money out of nothing, and a lot of the wealth generated is either gone or going away.

Right now this is bad Ė but later it will be good. Kind of like when you say to you kids ďyouíll understand this when you are olderĒ

Itís bad right now because income and wealth is being lost and there is economic confusion. That is causing financial hardship. Itís also bad because of the uncertainty and fear that results for the absence of a clear vision of a positive future. More people are affected by uncertainty and fear than financial hardship.

Itís good because businesses and people will now turn away from this artificial financial stuff and get back to making and selling real stuff. The work force will be larger as more people work longer to fund their lifestyle and retirement. This keeps a lid on labor costs and helps keep inflation under control. It also stimulates demand because working people consume more than non-working people.

Itís good for the US because we import much of the real stuff we consume, so the weakening in demand affect others more now and later the strengthening in demand will create more opportunity for US businesses to satisfy.

Businesses that arenít competitive will fail and be absorbed by their competitors. This will help boost productivity Ė and also profits. It becomes a whole lot easier to distinguish effective business leadership and management from the mediocrity and rest of the herd.

The relationship between risk and reward becomes clearer and strengthens. That is a very positive thing for equity investors.

This isnít happening yet, and it may be too soon to be fully exposed to equities, but the writing is on the walls. If the past decade (and a half) is the lost decade, this upcoming decade will be the revitalization of capitalism. And it will be great for investors.
Terrific post! Just read it again today.

Audrey
__________________
audreyh1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 10:32 AM   #180
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moemg View Post
I went to my Vanguard account ready to sell and go to all cash and I could not pull the trigger . I did sell some stock that I was tired of owning . I now have 10 years in cash and safe investments and I've turned off CNN and went back to enjoying my life and trying to ignore the markets . I was spending too much time worrying about them and I have found out that the things you worry about rarely happen . It is the other crap that ends up happening and changing your life .
Good for you! Now that was a rational action. This is not an all-in or all-out proposition. It's really a short-term versus long-term needs tradeoff, and you just need to figure how to cover yourself short-term. Feeling like you can go back and live life and ignore the markets indicates you have achieved your objective! And you didn't have to go all cash to do it.

I rebalanced on the way down, but I held the line at crossing under 11 or so years expenses in cash + bond funds. Not all the bonds in my bonds are super safe, but enough are that I feel like I am covered for a decade easily. Plenty of time for my equities and lower grade bonds to recover and in the meantime bring in those yields! Plus I have another two years in money markets and CDs outside my investment portfolio.

Audrey
__________________

__________________
audreyh1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Longboard ride ls99 Other topics 0 11-21-2008 07:35 AM
Pictures from Bike Ride TromboneAl Other topics 10 10-27-2008 02:24 PM
what a ride bongo2 Young Dreamers 5 10-15-2008 01:39 PM
Pimp my ride! cute fuzzy bunny FIRE and Money 70 06-28-2005 11:59 PM
Ride the wave.... Tommy_Dolitte Young Dreamers 0 10-09-2004 12:38 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:09 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.