[N/A] Tesla turns a $312 mil profit in Q3

Like the man or not,he does know how to make money.
 
Sounds like the profit was more about timing revenue recognition than any significant underlying change. The seem to have T3 production ramped up, but they are far from meeting demand yet.

Hopefully they can continue next quarter and they are not starting an Enron chase.
 
bflynn said:
Sounds like the profit was more about timing revenue recognition than any significant underlying change. The seem to have T3 production ramped up, but they are far from meeting demand yet.

Hopefully they can continue next quarter and they are not starting an Enron chase.
Click to expand...

Tesla produced 70’000 vehicles this quarter, 55’000 the one before, 35’000 the one before. 26’000 this time last year.

How is this not a “significant underlying change”?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Oh, probably about the same as Amazon in 2001...
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. The burden of high expectations.
TSLA is already valued as though it's the Amazon of car manufacturing.
 
GRG55 said:
Ah, yes. The burden of high expectations.
TSLA is already valued as though it's the Amazon of car manufacturing.
Click to expand...
Something is worth what someone will give you for it. No more. No less. The fact that TSLA share price does not meet the same metrics as most other publicly traded stock is not really the issue. Buzz - aka goodwill - has a long history of bastardizing share prices, both up and down.
 
deonb said:
Tesla produced 70’000 vehicles this quarter, 55’000 the one before, 35’000 the one before. 26’000 this time last year.

How is this not a “significant underlying change”?
Click to expand...

The production increase is a approximately linear. I noted that they increased production, you just said the same thing I did and then told me I was wrong.

I am hoping this is not a revenue timing race because that is not sustainable. Upper management is under tremendous pressure to turn a profit and moving revenue forward is one way to do that. The turnaround is much more than can be accounted for merely by increasing production.

In bschool, one of my professors in ethics was Jeff Skilling’s college roommate, so we talked about that a little. Skilling is not an evil, corrupt guy, he just got caught up in a paper chase trap of his own making and didn’t see a way out...he was sure than next quarter must turn around. This is how he started and it was a warning to all of us. Any time I see a dramatic turn around, I wonder about how it happened.

Tesla makes roughly $6000 profit per car, so a 15k increase accounts for $90m in profit. Where did the other $228m come from?
 
bflynn said:
Tesla makes roughly $6000 profit per car, so a 15k increase accounts for $90m in profit. Where did the other $228m come from?
Click to expand...

I wondered if they took in some "carbon credits" to make that number, or deferred some payables. The other thing of note, is that most of the quality rankings for the Model S and Model X have been downgraded to below average. Should be fun to see how it all shakes out, as most of the other car makers will have competing models online (for a likely cheaper price) in the next 2-3 years. Tesla won't have very long to be the sole heir to the mid/high end EV market.
 
Gotta admit this guy is brilliant. While traditional car makers are still trying to stuff tech into a car, Elon has made the car it's self the tech.
 
Grum.Man said:
Gotta admit this guy is brilliant. While traditional car makers are still trying to stuff tech into a car, Elon has made the car it's self the tech.
Click to expand...

It's still just a toy for the well to-do. It makes no financial sense to buy a Model 3 versus an equivalent Honda Civic/Accord. The fuel savings/maintenance savings won't be offset with current electric/fuel prices over the life of the car. The main thing Tesla did that other car makers didn't (those with PHEVs/EVs) is make the vehicle performance-minded and attractive. No one wanted an Insight/Prius/etc. because they were made even uglier as EVs than the regular gas-burner models and were slow/uninspiring to boot.
 
I read somewhere that the federal subsidies that Tesla received ended/will end sometime this month. I believe they get them for the first 200,000 cars sold. Gotta wonder how this will affect them in the future.
 
JB1842 said:
I read somewhere that the federal subsidies that Tesla received ended/will end sometime this month. I believe they get them for the first 200,000 cars sold. Gotta wonder how this will affect them in the future.
Click to expand...

I used to work in Silicon Valley up until about a year ago, and still know many people out there. A lot of people lease cars for commuting,and several of the folks I know have leases that are almost up, so they're looking out for their next vehicle.

Every one of them are at least looking at Teslas, and one just bought a Model 3. None of them were concerned with the subsidy going away. Although they were bummed the purchase/lease might cost them more, none of them said it would be a showstopper to them getting a Tesla.

Silicon Valley is kind of its own little world, so subsidies ending might have an effect every where else in the country. But from what I'm hearing from people I know out there, subsidies ending won't have much of an impact to people shopping in the Valley.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I wondered if they took in some "carbon credits" to make that number, or deferred some payables.
Click to expand...
They made $50m from ZEV credits - would have been profitable even without that.

SoonerAviator said:
Should be fun to see how it all shakes out, as most of the other car makers will have competing models online (for a likely cheaper price) in the next 2-3 years.
Click to expand...
No other car manufacturer is building a coast to coast charging network. Unless they start doing that soon, come 2 to 3 years from now they'll still have cars that nobody wants.
 
SoonerAviator said:
It's still just a toy for the well to-do. It makes no financial sense to buy a Model 3 versus an equivalent Honda Civic/Accord.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about airplanes? Because what you say would apply MORE to airplanes. Many of us drive cars daily.
 
deonb said:
They made $50m from ZEV credits - would have been profitable even without that.


No other car manufacturer is building a coast to coast charging network. Unless they start doing that soon, come 2 to 3 years from now they'll still have cars that nobody wants.
Click to expand...

The private market will take care of that, once there's enough demand to warrant it. Gas stations can add charging stalls fairly easily if they have the real estate and grid capability. The economies of scale that GM/Ford/Honda/Toyota/Nissan/etc have on manufacturing mean that they can get a ton of vehicles out in short order when they decide to flip the switch. In the mean time, people can still charge at a Tesla charging station or at work/home if needed. So I wouldn't go as far as to say they'd have cars that "nobody wants", just cars that will utilize Tesla charging stations until the private market reacts.
 
SoonerAviator said:
It's still just a toy for the well to-do. It makes no financial sense to buy a Model 3 versus an equivalent Honda Civic/Accord. The fuel savings/maintenance savings won't be offset with current electric/fuel prices over the life of the car. The main thing Tesla did that other car makers didn't (those with PHEVs/EVs) is make the vehicle performance-minded and attractive. No one wanted an Insight/Prius/etc. because they were made even uglier as EVs than the regular gas-burner models and were slow/uninspiring to boot.
Click to expand...
Since when was the car buying habits of the American public about financial sense? You have people taking out 8 year loans on $70,000 pickup trucks.

Also, I think a reasonable percentage of EV sales are about practical issues like being able to use HOV lanes, "fueling" at home vs hitting the gas station, that kind of thing.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The private market will take care of that, once there's enough demand to warrant it. Gas stations can add charging stalls fairly easily if they have the real estate and grid capability.
Click to expand...
You are describing a very big chicken and egg problem there.

The majority of Gas stations are not designed to be places to hang out for 30 minutes. There's generally nothing to do for that long, and especially nowhere to sit down. Charging requires different kinds of commercial establishments around it to be attractive. Also, the profit on charging is almost nothing. So there's not a lot of incentive for Gas stations to build these. Malls and shops on the other want to attract shoppers sure, but currently they can cover over 90% of the long-range EV market by making a single deal with Tesla that costs them nothing. So why would they spend their own money to put in another set of chargers to cover another 10%? Especially since that 10% are going to be less affluent people on average.

SoonerAviator said:
In the mean time, people can still charge at a Tesla charging station or at work/home if needed. So I wouldn't go as far as to say they'd have cars that "nobody wants", just cars that will utilize Tesla charging stations until the private market reacts.
Click to expand...

Only Teslas can charge at Tesla Superchargers. There was a time around 5 years back when Elon made an open offer to other car manufacturers that he will allow them to charge their cars at Tesla Supercharger stations if they in turn help Tesla build out the network. Nobody took him up on the offer at the time, and that offer is now long gone.
 
JB1842 said:
Gee. You are so much smarter than I am.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2018/10/12/tesla-federal-tax-credit-october-15/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/38133245
Click to expand...

Both of those articles you link to (correctly) says it’s reducing, not ending. And you can still buy an inventory vehicle until the last day of the year and get the subsidy - you just can’t place a new order.

Granted I bet they’ll run out of inventory vehicles before end of December.

Either way, it’s not ending yet- and there is currently a (Republican sponsored) bill in Congress to make this credit end-date based (around 2020 I think) rather than a 200k flat per manufacturer that allows someone like Porche to receive that subsidy for decades and other manufacturers to drag their feet.
 
Lol I love these Tesla threads. So entertaining. Although we’re missing Nate :(
 
SoonerAviator said:
The private market will take care of that, once there's enough demand to warrant it. Gas stations can add charging stalls fairly easily if they have the real estate and grid capability. The economies of scale that GM/Ford/Honda/Toyota/Nissan/etc have on manufacturing mean that they can get a ton of vehicles out in short order when they decide to flip the switch. In the mean time, people can still charge at a Tesla charging station or at work/home if needed. So I wouldn't go as far as to say they'd have cars that "nobody wants", just cars that will utilize Tesla charging stations until the private market reacts.
Click to expand...

Easier said than done. If is was so easy, then GM would be build 50K Bolt's right now.....
The supply chain is significantly more complicated; especially on the battery side. Current ICE powered cars to make 50K, you need 200K tires, 50K engine blocks, 50K transmissions, 50K fuel tanks... You go to a few hundred suppliers. For that EV car, you need 50K electric motors, and a few million battery cells with only a dozen suppliers in the world.

Tim
 
I imagine I'll get an electric eventually; doesn't seen likely it'll be a Tesla, though. I'm thinking the established manufacturers will be more competitive. Not like it's secret-sauce tech, or that Tesla has some major, significant advantage. But for now, there isn't a practical reason for me to transition. . . .
 
tspear said:
Easier said than done. If is was so easy, then GM would be build 50K Bolt's right now.....
The supply chain is significantly more complicated; especially on the battery side. Current ICE powered cars to make 50K, you need 200K tires, 50K engine blocks, 50K transmissions, 50K fuel tanks... You go to a few hundred suppliers. For that EV car, you need 50K electric motors, and a few million battery cells with only a dozen suppliers in the world.

Tim
Click to expand...

No denying that supply capacity constraints are there, but it's not like the "tech" side of the equation is any big leap. The reason they haven't been making 50K Bolts per month, is because the demand for such a product has been (and still is) extremely low compared to the rest of their product lines. Since the margin is so low on the Bolt/Volt/Sonic/etc. already, they aren't investing too much into it since selling a single SUV drives enough margin to the bottom line to equal several Bolt sales. They'll still have to buy 200K tires and every other component of a car that isn't driveline-related. There's plenty of economy of scale on those items, too. :)
 
deonb said:
You are describing a very big chicken and egg problem there.

The majority of Gas stations are not designed to be places to hang out for 30 minutes. There's generally nothing to do for that long, and especially nowhere to sit down. Charging requires different kinds of commercial establishments around it to be attractive. Also, the profit on charging is almost nothing. So there's not a lot of incentive for Gas stations to build these. Malls and shops on the other want to attract shoppers sure, but currently they can cover over 90% of the long-range EV market by making a single deal with Tesla that costs them nothing. So why would they spend their own money to put in another set of chargers to cover another 10%? Especially since that 10% are going to be less affluent people on average.



Only Teslas can charge at Tesla Superchargers. There was a time around 5 years back when Elon made an open offer to other car manufacturers that he will allow them to charge their cars at Tesla Supercharger stations if they in turn help Tesla build out the network. Nobody took him up on the offer at the time, and that offer is now long gone.
Click to expand...

Gas stations will be able to serve a short-term charging situation (like I need 15 minute charge to get home), but assuming the electrical infrastructure is there, the charging stations can be set up at any business that wishes to provide it/charge for it. It's not going to take a giant leap for the chicken/egg situation to dissolve, it just takes enough demand for the free market to react. Shopping malls/strip centers/libraries/etc. can all be equipped fairly easily if they so desire. Tesla Supercharging stations aren't convenient in most of the country by any stretch of the imagination unless you're willing to drive out of your way to get to one. The free market will spur plenty of neighborhood locations which will fill the need when it arises. Gas stations make a good portion of their money on retail sales of convenience store items, they don't make much money on a gallon of gasoline, same will apply to charging stations.
 
bflynn said:
I am hoping this is not a revenue timing race because that is not sustainable. Upper management is under tremendous pressure to turn a profit and moving revenue forward is one way to do that.
Click to expand...

How do you "move revenue forward" under GAAP? I think they know full well that would be a foolish short-term gain anyway, and Elon is all about the long game.

Tesla makes roughly $6000 profit per car, so a 15k increase accounts for $90m in profit. Where did the other $228m come from?
Click to expand...

Where do you get $6K?

20% on a 3 is between $9K and $19K, $15K with a mid-range config * 56K delivered = $840M.
25% on an S/X is between $19K and $38K, $26K with a mid-range config * 27.7K delivered = $720M.

Obviously, plenty of other expenditures bring things down, especially with another $68M in gross margin on energy products and $52M in ZEV credit sales.

SoonerAviator said:
Should be fun to see how it all shakes out, as most of the other car makers will have competing models online (for a likely cheaper price) in the next 2-3 years. Tesla won't have very long to be the sole heir to the mid/high end EV market.
Click to expand...

That's not as obvious of an outcome as you might think. Tesla's investments in battery production are really starting to pay off. All of the other OEMs are using third party batteries, I think LG Chem is the biggest one. Tesla's battery packs cost them significantly less than the others' do, which will allow them to make either a better car, a better profit, or both.

Sundancer said:
I imagine I'll get an electric eventually; doesn't seen likely it'll be a Tesla, though. I'm thinking the established manufacturers will be more competitive. Not like it's secret-sauce tech, or that Tesla has some major, significant advantage. But for now, there isn't a practical reason for me to transition. . . .
Click to expand...

There's more to Tesla than just being electric, and that's what most people don't understand. There's a few extra bits that make Teslas compelling even if other manufacturers were to come out with an equivalent car at the same price:

1) The Supercharger network. Nobody else has even gotten a good start on an organized nationwide (worldwide, really) quick-charge network. There are plenty of fast charging stations in California, and a good number on the east coast, but most others are clustered in metro areas, making other companies' EVs worthless for road trips.
2) Over-the-air software updates. Other companies' cars will never be better than the day you got them, while Teslas continue to improve and gain new features.
3) No dealers! People freaking hate car dealers, and being able to just order and configure online is a much improved buying experience.
4) No taking the car in for service. Teslas are designed such that over 80% of maintenance tasks can be completed with the car on the ground in your garage (or in the parking lot where you work), and they're doubling down on the mobile service model.

SoonerAviator said:
It's still just a toy for the well to-do. It makes no financial sense to buy a Model 3 versus an equivalent Honda Civic/Accord. The fuel savings/maintenance savings won't be offset with current electric/fuel prices over the life of the car.

Yet, the Civic and Accord are two of the top four vehicle models currently being traded in for Teslas.

Also... Let's take a look. I'm going to configure an Accord and a Model 3 similarly and see what the result is:

Model 3 comes to $15,135 more than the Accord. Let's assume 8 years of ownership at 12,000 miles per year.

Fuel costs:
Accord gets about 34 mpg combined, and the national average gas price is $2.85 today. Fuel cost if prices remain unchanged: $8,047.
Model 3 uses 26 kWh/100 miles and the national average electric rate is $0.12/kWh. Fuel cost if prices remain unchanged: $2,995. Model 3 advantage: $5,052.

Maintenance:
Tesla: $1040
Accord (per RepairPal): $2560

So, with the $7500 tax credit, they come out about even. If you keep the car longer, the Tesla has a big advantage. But it's also a lot more fun to drive than an Accord, so people will want it anyway.

The main thing Tesla did that other car makers didn't (those with PHEVs/EVs) is make the vehicle performance-minded and attractive. No one wanted an Insight/Prius/etc. because they were made even uglier as EVs than the regular gas-burner models and were slow/uninspiring to boot.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

JB1842 said:
I read somewhere that the federal subsidies that Tesla received ended/will end sometime this month. I believe they get them for the first 200,000 cars sold. Gotta wonder how this will affect them in the future.
Click to expand...

Still in full effect on cars delivered through the end of the year, then partial credits through 2019. There's also bills that would either extend the credit strictly to a particular date or eliminate it entirely. I'm in favor of either - It doesn't make sense to now penalize the manufacturers that have invested in creating electrified vehicles and give credits to the purchasers of the laggards, especially since American companies (Tesla and GM) are the ones that would be most affected.

SoonerAviator said:
The private market will take care of that, once there's enough demand to warrant it. Gas stations can add charging stalls fairly easily if they have the real estate and grid capability. The economies of scale that GM/Ford/Honda/Toyota/Nissan/etc have on manufacturing mean that they can get a ton of vehicles out in short order when they decide to flip the switch. In the mean time, people can still charge at a Tesla charging station or at work/home if needed. So I wouldn't go as far as to say they'd have cars that "nobody wants", just cars that will utilize Tesla charging stations until the private market reacts.
Click to expand...

Other cars can't utilize the Tesla Superchargers, as it is today. They use a different plug and require a software handshake to enable the charger.

I also don't think the private market will take care of this, absent some massive tax incentives. Current fast charging stations cost around $30,000 per plug, and that's for a 50kW one (Tesla does 120kW on the current Superchargers). Current ones like EvGO cost 20 cents per minute, and when they're running at full speed that's about 12 cents just in power costs, to say nothing of administrative and installation costs. It's not going to be the quick payday the private market likes, especially when it needs to be planned out as a network along major highways such that many of the plugs will be in rural areas.

tspear said:
Easier said than done. If is was so easy, then GM would be build 50K Bolt's right now.....
The supply chain is significantly more complicated; especially on the battery side. Current ICE powered cars to make 50K, you need 200K tires, 50K engine blocks, 50K transmissions, 50K fuel tanks... You go to a few hundred suppliers. For that EV car, you need 50K electric motors, and a few million battery cells with only a dozen suppliers in the world.
Click to expand...

That's why Tesla's self-sourcing of the batteries is so important, and such a big advantage for them.
Click to expand...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
How do you "move revenue forward" under GAAP? I think they know full well that would be a foolish short-term gain anyway, and Elon is all about the long game.
Click to expand...

Simple, if he meant "profit" versus revenue: defer recognition of expenses. Negotiate longer payment terms with vendors, delay processing of goods receipts or other A/P items, temporarily constrict spending to below-operable levels. Not likely in this case for Tesla, but another trick is to ship a bunch of items that a customer ordered but doesn't want to receive until the following month/quarter. Ship it off the dock by midnight, it won't show up at the customer's location until the next month, viola, instant revenue bump. Revenue gets a bump for the quarter, stocks go up because investors get a rosy picture. Sure, it's a short term gain, but there are publicly-traded companies who play that game all the time in order to try and meet some profit forecast goal they were expected to make, especially at quarter-end or year-end.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Simple, if he meant "profit" versus revenue: defer recognition of expenses. Negotiate longer payment terms with vendors, delay processing of goods receipts or other A/P items, temporarily constrict spending to below-operable levels. Not likely in this case for Tesla, but another trick is to ship a bunch of items that a customer ordered but doesn't want to receive until the following month/quarter. Ship it off the dock by midnight, it won't show up at the customer's location until the next month, viola, instant revenue bump. Revenue gets a bump for the quarter, stocks go up because investors get a rosy picture. Sure, it's a short term gain, but there are publicly-traded companies who play that game all the time in order to try and meet some profit forecast goal they were expected to make, especially at quarter-end or year-end.
Click to expand...

True, but since analysts were expecting a loss, they really didn't *need* to show anything more than a modest profit to beat expectations, so I would think if anything they would have paid some things off early instead to ensure they could also show a profit for the 4th quarter without hardly having to try.
 
SoonerAviator said:
another trick is to ship a bunch of items that a customer ordered but doesn't want to receive until the following month/quarter. Ship it off the dock by midnight, it won't show up at the customer's location until the next month, viola, instant revenue bump
Click to expand...

That would be blatantly illegal to book that as revenue. Even if you have the cash from the customer at hand - all of that cash is booked as a liability (not just the portion that cover COGS but all of it), and the car itself is inventory. It doesn’t become revenue until the customer signs and the car is delivered.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Simple, if he meant "profit" versus revenue: defer recognition of expenses. Negotiate longer payment terms with vendors, delay processing of goods receipts or other A/P items, temporarily constrict spending to below-operable levels. Not likely in this case for Tesla, but another trick is to ship a bunch of items that a customer ordered but doesn't want to receive until the following month/quarter. Ship it off the dock by midnight, it won't show up at the customer's location until the next month, viola, instant revenue bump. Revenue gets a bump for the quarter, stocks go up because investors get a rosy picture. Sure, it's a short term gain, but there are publicly-traded companies who play that game all the time in order to try and meet some profit forecast goal they were expected to make, especially at quarter-end or year-end.
Click to expand...

Almost everything you posted is illegal and violates GAAP.
You can avoid an expense, such as not taking employees out for lunch, you can negotiate a discount with a vendor.
If you get longer payment terms from a vendor, that affects cash flow, not accrued liability which the profit is based on.
There are really only a few accounting related games you can play to increase profit. Some of the big ones:
1. Push inventory into the channel and count them as sales. If you can convince the auditor you do not have to worry about buyback of inventory, it is a straight sale with no accrued return liability.
2. Stop capital expenditures.
3. Cut payable accruals based on some business logic that an auditor buys. e.g. change the bonus program to be based on net profit versus gross profit. This drastically lowers the bonus pool.

My question is, what was the major change in the balance sheet and p&l from the last filing. And I thought the CFO left recently.... and was only there less than a year. That makes me suspicious of the reported numbers.

Tim
 
deonb said:
That would be blatantly illegal to book that as revenue. Even if you have the cash from the customer at hand - all of that cash is booked as a liability (not just the portion that cover COGS but all of it), and the car itself is inventory. It doesn’t become revenue until the customer signs and the car is delivered.
Click to expand...

Depends entirely on what your shipping terms are for revenue recognition. If you have FOB shipping point, you can absolutely ship it off the dock and record revenue at that time.
 
tspear said:
Almost everything you posted is illegal and violates GAAP.
You can avoid an expense, such as not taking employees out for lunch, you can negotiate a discount with a vendor.
If you get longer payment terms from a vendor, that affects cash flow, not accrued liability which the profit is based on.
There are really only a few accounting related games you can play to increase profit. Some of the big ones:
1. Push inventory into the channel and count them as sales. If you can convince the auditor you do not have to worry about buyback of inventory, it is a straight sale with no accrued return liability.
2. Stop capital expenditures.
3. Cut payable accruals based on some business logic that an auditor buys. e.g. change the bonus program to be based on net profit versus gross profit. This drastically lowers the bonus pool.

My question is, what was the major change in the balance sheet and p&l from the last filing. And I thought the CFO left recently.... and was only there less than a year. That makes me suspicious of the reported numbers.

Tim
Click to expand...

Sorry, when negotiating terms with a vendor, I write "payment terms" but I was thinking more along the lines of timing of shipments. Ex: Making things that were previously billed when shipped and turning them into a consignment stock where they aren't billed until pulled for use in production, etc. Again, it's just vendor negotiations, nothing illegal vs GAAP. Also, when I say "delay receipt of goods or AP items", I don't mean go tell the warehouse clerk to ignore those materials that just showed up on the dock. I mean that in the operational sense that you can call vendors and push out items that would normally be shipped but delay those until the next week to avoid receipts (and thus accrued payables)
 
Watching “Revenge of the Electric Car” right now. They’ve definitely come a long way from the Roadster but, like many have said in the movie, they need to make a car that everyone can afford. Tesla is getting close but not yet at a price point that I can afford. I wouldn’t buy a new car for $56K but if I did, there are other more desirable prospects.

I wouldn’t have my Volt right now if it weren’t for Tesla, so that’s a good thing. ;)
 
The ability to game the system for revenue recognition is significantly limited when dealing in physical products (you can forget any comparison between Enron and Tesla for this). Any remaining opportunity pretty much disappears when you are constrained by how fast you can produce goods (like Tesla). Channel stuffing might be simple when you're producing software. A little more difficult when you're working off a backlog manufacturing cars.
 
tspear said:
There are really only a few accounting related games you can play to increase profit. Some of the big ones:
1. Push inventory into the channel and count them as sales. If you can convince the auditor you do not have to worry about buyback of inventory, it is a straight sale with no accrued return liability.
Click to expand...

But in this case there is no "channel." Tesla does not sell through dealers at all, they only have their own factory-owned stores and all sales are direct to consumer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top