New housing bubble in Silicon Valley is a Fraud


By Patrick   Follow   Thu, 7 Jul 2011, 7:34pm   9,061 views   34 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

The supposed "new housing bubble" in Silicon Valley just does not stand up to close examination.

If we consider asking prices in 33 of the richest zip codes in Silicon Valley over the last year and a half, there is at best a bump around May of this year, and a very short spike more recently:

The graph is rather noisy because it is daily average asking price. Very high and very low prices can make it spike or plummet for the day, but at least I don't lose any data this way.

Here are the zip codes I used and the corresponding cities:

94022 94024 94025 94040 94041 94043 94085 94086 94087 94089 94301 94303 94306 94536 94538 94539 94555 95014 95030 95032 95033 95050 95051 95054 95070 95121 95129 95131 95132 95133 95135 95138 95148

Cupertino
Evergreen in San Jose
Fremont
Los Altos
Los Gatos
Menlo Park
Mountain View
North Valley in San Jose
Palo Alto
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale

This gave me a total of 28,268 asking prices which I used to generate the graph. The data is from my What's It Really Worth? real estate data service.

Viewing Comments 1-34 of 34     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Robber Baron Elite Scum


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    112 threads
    950 comments
    Roslyn, NY

    1   7:47pm Thu 7 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Sucker's bull rally. lol

    It's happening in a lot of markets. Heck - it's even happened in stocks since 2009 low.

  2. ¥


    Follow
    Befriend
    35 threads
    5,700 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    2   8:01pm Thu 7 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    that's what about zillow is showing for 94022, flat for the year, but heading up in this selling season. Down from the bubble values. but still at 2003-2004 valuation.

  3. Done!


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    159 threads
    2,826 comments

    3   9:02pm Thu 7 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Oh sure and the other Bubble was on the up and up.

    :P

  4. bgamall4


    Follow
    Befriend (11)
    1,234 threads
    7,617 comments
    64 male
    Las Vegas, NV
    bgamall4's website
    Premium

    4   10:21pm Thu 7 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Well, there is a phony bubble and a bubble based on fraud. This is a phony bubble Trout and the other one was based upon fraudulent CDO's. Once the private MBS took over from the CRA they were off to the races, mid 2003 on.

  5. ducsingle5313


    Follow
    Befriend
    4 threads
    205 comments
    Redwood City, CA

    5   10:27pm Thu 7 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Those news articles were idiotic and misleading.

    Irrational valuations for recent IPOs (linkedin.com, etc.) do not result in a large number of folks flush with cash shopping for new digs because only a very small number of people actually make money on those deals. It's not like you have to offer stock grants and/or options to rank and file employees when unemployment is above 10% in Silicon Valley. Not to mention most of the folks who benefit the most from those deals already have nice houses in desirable neighborhoods and aren't particularly interested in moving.

  6. Cvoc13


    Follow
    Befriend (9)
    6 threads
    194 comments
    Dublin, CA
    Cvoc13's website

    6   10:41pm Thu 7 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    There is likely to be a bump up, due to the upcoming Big"Book" IPO and the recent IPO's in tech. But that flood of money will largely only affect the ultra high end then when the next phase of the financial crisis, it will find its natural level.

  7. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    7   11:51pm Thu 7 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    ducsingle5313 says

    Irrational valuations for recent IPOs (linkedin.com, etc.) do not result in a large number of folks flush with cash shopping for new digs because only a very small number of people actually make money on those deals.

    Can happen because it has happened before, 1998-2000. Question is who is willing to depart with their savings and hand it over to these share holders. But so far Linkedin options holder is much smaller population. Some 4-5 officers hold the majority.

    Today vs, back in the day, options are expensed and due to the stock option scandal, back dating, controls and awards are much more restricted than in the past.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Options_backdating#Overview_of_options_backdating_scandals

  8. mdovell


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    28 threads
    783 comments

    8   5:18am Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    There's probably another dot com bubble but that doesn't automatically equate with a housing bubble...especially since many of the new companies aren't even located in Silicon Valley (google is in cambridge ma), linked in is in santa monica etc

  9. rubyrae


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    39 comments

    9   5:50am Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    I live on the East Coast (MA). The pricing is still very high. Our assessment are done two years out. So an assessment for 2011 is really based on 2009 values. Almost all homes I see have an asking price dead on their assessment value for 2011 which is really what their home was worth in 2009. Now the market has gone down considerably but we are not seeing that reflected in the pricing. Even more disheartening is that the brokers know that these values are two years out, so why are they over-inflating the prices?? I've been sitting on a chunk of money and would like to buy but not at these prices.

  10. Serpentor


    Follow
    Befriend
    7 threads
    438 comments

    10   6:24am Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    mdovell says

    There's probably another dot com bubble but that doesn't automatically equate with a housing bubble...especially since many of the new companies aren't even located in Silicon Valley (google is in cambridge ma), linked in is in santa monica etc

    uh.. google is in Mountain View CA

  11. StoutFiles


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    24 threads
    557 comments

    11   6:53am Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    But Patrick, if we don't buy now we could be priced out forever!

  12. corntrollio


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    39 threads
    3,112 comments

    12   11:45am Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

    mdovell says

    especially since many of the new companies aren't even located in Silicon Valley (google is in cambridge ma), linked in is in santa monica etc

    Are you serious? Google is not based in Cambridge, nor is it a new company. The GooglePlex is in Mountain View, CA (and the company was founded in Menlo Park, CA.

    LinkedIn was founded in Santa Monica (actual quote from LinkedIn's website: "LinkedIn started out in the living room of co-founder Reid Hoffman in 2002."), but is now based in Mountain View.

    Pandora is based in Oakland, not Silicon Valley.

    Groupon is Chicago.

    Zynga is SF. Twitter is SF.

    Facebook is Palo Alto, but is moving to Menlo Park.

  13. corntrollio


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    39 threads
    3,112 comments

    13   11:52am Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Patrick says

    The graph is rather noisy because it is daily average asking price.

    Patrick -- do you think it would be helpful or meaningful to provide some sort of moving average in addition to a daily average? e.g. a 7 day average, 14 day average, 30 day average, etc. It may help us suss out the trends here.

    This is great data. Thank you for compiling it.

  14. APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch


    Follow
    Befriend (27)
    408 threads
    11,739 comments

    14   11:57am Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    But those 1 billion RICH Chinese and Indians, haven't they been showing up with 55 gallon drums filled with cash and fighting with each other on the lawns of valley homes, running up the prices of every 3/2 on the market?

  15. bubblesitter


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    10 threads
    3,112 comments

    15   1:36pm Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    APOCALYPSEFUCK is really Iwog says

    But those 1 billion RICH Chinese and Indians, haven't they been showing up with 55 gallon drums filled with cash and fighting with each other on the lawns of valley homes, running up the prices of every 3/2 on the market?

    Cool. So you think you are Iwog now?

  16. Jim in San Marcos


    Follow
    Befriend
    4 threads
    1 comments
    San Marcos, CA
    Jim in San Marcos's website

    16   2:34pm Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Hi Patrick

    One thing you need to take into account, is that rich people buy houses without regard to the economy. The wage earners drop out of the buying in a bad economy. At that point you have nothing but high price homes selling and no low price homes in the mix to bring the average down. The net result gives the appeareance of rising home prices.

  17. Misstrial


    Follow
    Befriend
    243 comments
    Cupertino, CA

    17   2:54pm Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Jim in San Marcos says

    Hi Patrick

    One thing you need to take into account, is that rich people buy houses without regard to the economy. The wage earners drop out of the buying in a bad economy. At that point you have nothing but high price homes selling and no low price homes in the mix to bring the average down. The net result gives the appeareance of rising home prices.

    I agree with this, however even in Los Altos, prices have been coming down for over 2 years now - my landlord being a prime example whose residence has fallen over $800k in value.

    ~Misstrial

  18. corntrollio


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    39 threads
    3,112 comments

    18   3:00pm Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Jim in San Marcos says

    At that point you have nothing but high price homes selling and no low price homes in the mix to bring the average down. The net result gives the appeareance of rising home prices.

    Yes, mix always matters. It is hard to isolate mix without looking at same-house sales like Case-Shiller does. Mix is why medians can show something different than what's really happening. Median data isn't really granular enough.

  19. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,660 threads
    6,342 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA
    Premium

    19   3:04pm Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    corntrollio says

    It is hard to isolate mix without looking at same-house sales like Case-Shiller does.

    Good point. What does Case-Shiller say about Silicon Valley lately?

  20. corntrollio


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    39 threads
    3,112 comments

    20   3:24pm Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    Patrick says

    What does Case-Shiller say about Silicon Valley lately?

    I think the "SF" for the 20-city data is SF MSA (5-county), which wouldn't include Santa Clara County, since that's SJ MSA. However, I know the data is available, as First Republic uses it for the "Prestige Index" -- they use an 8-county Bay Area (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara):

    San Francisco Bay Area properties include a cross-section of luxury homes in Alamo, Atherton, Belvedere, Danville, Healdsburg, Hillsborough, Lafayette, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mill Valley, Moraga, Orinda, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Portola Valley, Ross, St. Helena, San Francisco, Saratoga, Sonoma, Tiburon and Woodside.

    I referenced this index earlier on a post where I pointed out that Bay Area ultra high-end prices are back to 2000 when indexed for inflation.

  21. B.A.C.A.H.


    Follow
    Befriend (6)
    8 threads
    2,726 comments

    21   8:56pm Fri 8 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    APOCALYPSEFUCK is really Iwog says

    Chinese and Indians, haven't they been showing up with 55 gallon drums filled with cash

    Dunno about that but I found myself in The Fortress on personal business last weekend, area around Stevens Creek / DeAnza jammed with Lexuses and fancy SUVs, etc., shopping and chauffering around kids. Saw folks wearing polo shirts and Tshirts to boast about places they traveled to, the new ones I noticed were Antigua and a Resort in Macau.

  22. SJ


    Follow
    Befriend
    22 threads
    243 comments

    22   6:58pm Sun 10 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Yeah housing prices in SV are still way out of wack with reality. I walked around Mountain View today and saw an open house where the seller wanted 900k for a small 3 bedroom 1 bath old home with 1 car garage and tiny yard. Renting is WAY cheaper than buying now.

  23. ¥


    Follow
    Befriend
    35 threads
    5,700 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    23   7:15pm Sun 10 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Renting is WAY cheaper than buying now.

    $900,000 loan 20% down 4.25% = $3200/mo carrying cost starting out:

    Interest & Property Tax (less tax credit): $2259/mo

    Ins, Utils, Maintenance, Opportunity cost = ~$900/mo

    Over 30 years:

    Total interest paid (net tax credit): $360,000
    Total property tax paid (net tax): $220,000
    Total other costs: $164,250

    Total cost of ownership: $743,000
    Average cost of ownership: $2100/mo

    What are rents going to be in 2020? 2030?

    Higher or lower than $2100?

    When you pay $900,000 that's what you're locking your housing expense at (not counting the opportunity costs).

    People can get 5/1 ARMs at 3.25% rates now, and if they pay them off in 10 their interest expense can be rather small.

  24. SJ


    Follow
    Befriend
    22 threads
    243 comments

    24   8:39pm Sun 10 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Troy,

    You forgot to take into account that I can invest the down payment on 900k which would be $180k into different investments to keep up with inflation. As for rents going up, salaries must also go up otherwise rents will remain flat. Rents were not much less 10 years ago in Silicon Valley. Not to mention the added repair costs and time to spend fixing the house. I value free time outside of work to travel, exercise and do things besides fixing the house. Everyone I know who owns spends all their free time and money fixing or repairing something in their home! I can still get a business tax break for using part of the rental as a home office so the mortgage deduction really is not that big of a deal. If I were to buy, either bay area real estate must drop or I will eventually buy in a cheap place like Texas, Arizona, or Florida and relocate/transfer for job or find one there.

  25. Austinhousingbubble


    Follow
    Befriend
    7 threads
    677 comments

    25   9:15pm Sun 10 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Troy -- I always like your posts, but trying to get a bead on your thinking sometimes is like trying to bite down on a tomato seed. Are you just playing devil's advocate, or are you somehow trying to convince yourself that life with only one kidney really isn't as bad as people make out?

    Framing opportunity costs in parenthesis like you have here seriously downplays things. Right off the bat, you've sunk nearly 200K in liquid cash (which you'll never ever see again) into a modest SFH. From an investment perspective, you'd be better off buying a copy of Spider Man # 1 or an Abraham Lincoln toenail clipping or putting a down payment on a Stradivarius, or even just starting a small business somewhere. If the big idea is to lock in living costs, you could try to figure out how many durable and consumer dry goods you will need to replace over the coming three decades and lock those in, too; 200K will buy you more tube socks and Ivory soap today than it will in 2041.

    BTW I'd take the rent vs own idea one step further: it is MUCH cheaper to buy a Southwest ticket and visit whatever part of California it is that makes your heartstrings zing, and then retreat back from the Twilight Zone once you've had your fill. I've never lived in California, but I'm there for one reason or another about half a dozen times a year and this sampling is more than ample enough for imbuing my sensibilities with just enough of the good stuff that California has to offer -- which is mostly its' coastline and its' architecture.

    RE: 5/1 ARMS: This assumes a buyer's financial standing remains at least at parity for the first ten years: No personal scandals; no divorces; no deaths; no illnesses; no pay cuts; no job losses; no economic downturns...bascially, no allowance for chaos. This strikes me as quite a gamble.

  26. ¥


    Follow
    Befriend
    35 threads
    5,700 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    26   9:51pm Sun 10 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    Austinhousingbubble says

    you've sunk nearly 200K in liquid cash (which you'll never ever see again) into a modest SFH

    I assume the house and/or land will retain *some* value : )

    BTW I'd take the rent vs own idea one step further: it is MUCH cheaper to buy a Southwest ticket and visit whatever part of California

    People buy in PA to work in SV, where all the jobs are.

    I have no other attachment to SV, I'd much rather live up near Shaver Lake or perhaps in the San Lorenzo Valley, out where Heinlein used to live.

    5/1 ARMS: This assumes

    I don't think the index is going up any time in this life, other than in reaction to a bona-fide inflation event, which will be doing a number on rents and land values too.

    Are you just playing devil's advocate

    oh, and the biggest mistake I made was not buying in late 2001 when I was looking. There were some very good deals to be had then all over the state. I was in no hurry because I thought the dot com crash would last a long time, but I did not count on the google, Apple booms of 2002-2007 and the macro 2003-2006 craziness. Part of my decision not to buy was "renting ($700) is so much cheaper than buying ($~2500/mo)", but I made the mistake of counting principal repayment in that analysis.

    Solid houses from the 1990s up in the Shaver Lake area were in the low $300,000s then, they're still in the $600,000s now, e.g.:

    http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/42067-Granite-Ridge-Rd-Shaver-Lake-CA-93664/18642469_zpid/

  27. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    27   10:36pm Sun 10 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Troy says

    People buy in PA to work in SV, where all the jobs are.

    People live all around Santa Clara County and work in SV. Where you work during your career, isnt predictable. It may be PA or Fremont or down to South San Jose. In my three decades, I never worked/lived in PA, did I miss something ?

  28. Austinhousingbubble


    Follow
    Befriend
    7 threads
    677 comments

    28   10:37pm Sun 10 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Solid houses from the 1990s up in the Shaver Lake area were in the low $300,000s then, they're still in the $600,000s now, e.g.:

    Yeah, but this has way more to do with price propaganda (the manufacture through aggressive marketing of what the 'going price' for something should be) which is helped by the various price supports still presently in place more than it has to do with real supply/demand.

    In any event, the asking price for the house you linked to is down 100K from where it was when they purchased 2 years ago.

    You are watching a pot boil...give it 8-10 years.

  29. mdovell


    Follow
    Befriend (4)
    28 threads
    783 comments

    29   5:21am Mon 11 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    corntrollio says

    mdovell says

    especially since many of the new companies aren't even located in Silicon Valley (google is in cambridge ma), linked in is in santa monica etc

    Are you serious? Google is not based in Cambridge, nor is it a new company. The GooglePlex is in Mountain View, CA (and the company was founded in Menlo Park, CA.

    LinkedIn was founded in Santa Monica (actual quote from LinkedIn's website: "LinkedIn started out in the living room of co-founder Reid Hoffman in 2002."), but is now based in Mountain View.

    Pandora is based in Oakland, not Silicon Valley.

    Groupon is Chicago.

    Zynga is SF. Twitter is SF.

    Facebook is Palo Alto, but is moving to Menlo Park.

    Sorry my pad...I didn't say that google was a new company but they did wait a bit for their ipo.

    Facebook was founded in Cambridge ma
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

    All I'm getting at is this
    1) due to how bad the ipo's have been (ren ren, linked in, ffn etc) it can be safe to say that we have another dot com bubble
    2) Many people assume that because companies are dot comes that they are in the silicon valley
    3) because of #3 they feel that there's a new housing bubble

    In the late 90's it was largely that companies would operate to gain market share without looking at revenues let alone profits. Now we have companies that stay private for so long that we have no clue how much they are worth. Before facebook there was myspace and murdock got burned with it. Before that maybe aol and that merger was one of the worst in history.

  30. corntrollio


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    39 threads
    3,112 comments

    30   12:07pm Mon 11 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    SJ says

    I walked around Mountain View today and saw an open house where the seller wanted 900k for a small 3 bedroom 1 bath old home with 1 car garage and tiny yard. Renting is WAY cheaper than buying now.

    The ridiculous place I saw recently was this one:

    http://www.redfin.com/CA/Woodside/610-Woodside-Way-94062/home/1678462

    This is a 1BR house with a loft built 2000-2004. You may ask yourself, why would someone do that in this day and age? The reason is because this property is on a septic system, and a restrictive covenant placed on the house in 2001 does not permit more than 1BR.

    I also didn't believe it was 1600+ sqft. I've lived in 1200-1300 sqft houses with 3BR that felt bigger. It's also not really in Woodside proper, but rather Emerald Hills which has the Woodside zipcode/post office and not necessarily Woodside schools. Because this place is north of Jefferson, it may have Woodside schools. Nonetheless, this place is considered part of the Town of Woodside and is subject to its code and planning.

    It has a bizarre history too -- foreclosed in 2005 at $865,209, and then purchased for $925K in 2006. The current owners tried to add a second bathroom in the loft space but got smacked down by the Town of Woodside for doing so illegally without a permit and against the covenant which requires only 1 BR. The prior owner tried hard to build that second bathroom in the loft space, but got smacked down numerous times by the town (including after demolishing the prior 1BR house and applying for a "remodel").

    All this for a mere $1.095M.

  31. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    31   12:31pm Mon 11 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    mdovell says

    In the late 90's it was largely that companies would operate to gain market share without looking at revenues let alone profits. Now we have companies that stay private for so long that we have no clue how much they are worth.

    Today, many stay private because they under-invested in their accounting/finance. Many had to and currently are restating their financials, mainly revenues, because they are inaccurate.
    Many received poor comments from external auditors, as such you cannot file an S-1 to the SEC with inaccurate FS and a audit disclaimer opinion. Google had issues if you read their S-1 as does LinkedIn today. You wont find many seasoned Accounting people in FaceBook or LinkedIn. LI had to get a external consultant to file the S-1 and handle the SEC filings. The problem is they hired young children with no experience and passed up on hiring much older experienced valley veterns. Somehow, hiring seasoned older peoples doesn fit the Zynga, LinkedIn, or Facebook culture.

    Back in the 90s, that wasnt the problem, because more seasoned people managed the the company including the IPO process. Getting market share wasnt the issue.

  32. warblah


    Follow
    Befriend
    1 threads
    39 comments

    32   12:59pm Mon 11 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    corntrollio, i don't get it, foreclosed in 2005?? Didn't he got it for like 355k in 2000?

  33. corntrollio


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    39 threads
    3,112 comments

    33   2:33pm Mon 11 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    warblah says

    corntrollio, i don't get it, foreclosed in 2005?? Didn't he got it for like 355k in 2000?

    They tore it down completely (without getting a demo permit) and then rebuilt it. There may have been a big construction loan that was converted to a mortgage, or something else that resulted in the foreclosure (e.g. building the new house then cash-out). These guys tried for several years to back-door a 2nd bedroom into this house, and then the subsequent owner did too. We're 10 years down the line now.

  34. corntrollio


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    39 threads
    3,112 comments

    34   2:37pm Mon 11 Jul 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thomas.wong1986 says

    Many received poor comments from external auditors, as such you cannot file an S-1 to the SEC with inaccurate FS and a audit disclaimer opinion. Google had issues if you read their S-1 as does LinkedIn today. You wont find many seasoned Accounting people in FaceBook or LinkedIn.

    People really don't read the S-1s carefully enough before investing anyway. The standard is that you have to make disclosures of material items that someone would evaluate to make an investment, e.g. financials, risks, key talent, etc. However, those risks could be substantial. For example, Pandora says in their S-1 that their entire business model could be up-ended because their music licensing model could change. Didn't stop people from buying the stock, although it was below par for a while.

Premium member Patrick is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 217 milliseconds to create.