Aecon talks about the infrastructure industry in the second half of this year - looking good. http://tiny.cc/s6vma
The CEO, Scott Balfour, admits he is not sure if the rush of work is due to the government spending on infrastructure but that there is more work than they usually see. When I last heard Scott speak, it was to The Ticker Club, Toronto, and I was impressed with his positive energy and global perspective.
Here's part of the article:
By David Paddon (CP)
TORONTO — Canadian construction heavyweight Aecon Group Inc. (TSX:ARE) is finding new bidding opportunities are coming forward at an unprecedented pace that's likely the result of government economic stimulus packages, top executives say.
For the last six or eight weeks there have been significant new project opportunities every week that are "clearly being pushed as part of the stimulus package that we've been hearing so much about," Aecon president Scott Balfour said Wednesday on a conference call for analysts.
One analyst noted that some of the projects on Aecon's to-do list have been there for some time before the economic downturn and asked how much credit to give to the government stimulus spending.
"Truthfully, I don't know that it's possible for us to differentiate," Balfour replied. "Would all those projects still have been going but for the stimulus package? I just don't know."
But he added that the pace and number of projects coming forward at once has never been seen before "and so I can't help but believe that a lot of that is as a result of the incremental funding from the stimulus programs."
John Beck, Aecon's chairman and chief executive officer, said the Toronto-headquartered company is seeing an urgency to spend the money prior to March 31, 2011, the announced date for end of the federal stimulus program.
"And so there's a scramble. We're seeing that on some of the projects that may have been planned before," Beck said.
August 7, 2009
August 5, 2009
Unions lambast private equity
Here is an article in the New York Times ripping away at Private Equity by ANDY STERN, president of the Service Employees International Union. Read at WSJ:
May I add that this article is a great illustration at the disconnect between private equity and unions. Private equity's process is a black box for union leaders and an anathema, particularly to those who do not want to give up their 18 days paid sick day leave. As one commenter put it: "When Andy Stern and the SEIU subject their pension funds to the same oversight that he is suggesting should happen for private investors (as is the law), perhaps I'll take more seriously his analysis of how best to regulate capital markets."
Here's Andy:
While we’re still digging ourselves out of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, private-equity firms are shoveling dirt back in the hole. Firm leaders still argue that the over leveraged, privatized and market-worshipping financial model they perfected—uninhibited by regulation and enforcement—is key to rescuing our nation’s banks.
Last month, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released draft guidelines limiting the ability of private-equity firms to invest in failed banks. These new guidelines will ensure that the banks are well capitalized, that the details of their investments and loans, like those of any commercial banks, are made available to the FDIC, and that the FDIC and other agencies can prevent a rerun of the Savings & Loan crisis of the 1980s and ’90s.
Meanwhile, private-equity stalwarts have been arguing against those guidelines. If we are to believe these guys, any attempt to rein in private equity’s ability to invest in bank deals would stifle investment and hinder economic recovery.
They promise they’ll play by the rules this time, that we can trust them, that they’re looking out for taxpayers. But we’ve played that game before. And we learned ordinary Americans pay the price when financial markets are unregulated and over leveraged deals—which initially thrived—eventually go bust.
We lose our jobs as our employers cut back or are forced to close their doors altogether. We lose our retirements as the value of the stock market plummets, along with our investments and our pension funds. We lose our homes because we can no longer afford our mortgages after getting laid off or having our hours cut. We lose our recovery when banks cut off the credit our small businesses need to survive.
But hard-working people lose in more ways than this. As homes foreclose and businesses go bankrupt, states and cities lose tax revenue—resulting in cuts to services we depend on. That tax revenue could be used to provide health care for all, develop a new green economy, or foster a world-class education system. But instead of investing in our future, we end up bailing out a reckless financial industry.
Most Americans, like myself, believe in a pretty simple philosophy—that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to get by and raise a family, send your kid to college, and retire with dignity.
That’s been the promise of America for decades—until a handful of people on Wall Street and in Washington figured out how to rig the system against us.
Nobody is trying to stop private-equity firms from making profitable investments. But we need to ensure that the decisions made by a few never again threaten our ability to provide for our families and win a better life for our children. The FDIC’s guidelines are, for two reasons, an important step toward protecting the economy from future financial recklessness.
First, banking is still a relatively new industry for private-equity investors. It’s therefore not unusual for the government to provide them with increased oversight, ensuring their new investments prove sustainable. Private equity’s recent track record suggests that it needs regulation on this front.
For example, the Texas Pacific Group’s (TPG) disastrous investment in Washington Mutual last year prevented the financial giant from raising additional capital until it was too late, resulting in its forced fire-sale to J.P. Morgan Chase. This wiped out TPG’s entire investment.
Then in May, four private-equity investors teamed up to buy BankUnited—a bank with $12.7 billion in assets and $8.3 billion in deposits—for only $900 million. The FDIC committed to share in 84% of the bank’s losses. Though taxpayers subsidized the purchase and took on most of its risk, private-equity firms stood to gain most of the profits.
Second, private equity’s entire business model is based on reworking the connection between risk and reward. In this case, they get all the rewards while the government and taxpayers take on all the risk. This is not the way to stabilize our banking system. The FDIC’s guidelines ensure that more risk is spread out among investors with less saddled onto the taxpayers.
These are the kinds of guidelines that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) called for long before this economic crisis. SEIU wanted to ensure that private-equity firms wouldn’t continue to reap all the rewards of their investments while using workers and taxpayers as a backstop against potential losses and failures.
The FDIC’s new guidelines are a good first step, but full economic recovery will take more. We must continue to act more boldly and more broadly if we are truly serious about building a new financial model that rewards long-term sustainability over quick profits and fad investments.
As I said at the top of this article, Mr. Stern is the president of the Service Employees International Union.
May I add that this article is a great illustration at the disconnect between private equity and unions. Private equity's process is a black box for union leaders and an anathema, particularly to those who do not want to give up their 18 days paid sick day leave. As one commenter put it: "When Andy Stern and the SEIU subject their pension funds to the same oversight that he is suggesting should happen for private investors (as is the law), perhaps I'll take more seriously his analysis of how best to regulate capital markets."
Here's Andy:
While we’re still digging ourselves out of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, private-equity firms are shoveling dirt back in the hole. Firm leaders still argue that the over leveraged, privatized and market-worshipping financial model they perfected—uninhibited by regulation and enforcement—is key to rescuing our nation’s banks.
Last month, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released draft guidelines limiting the ability of private-equity firms to invest in failed banks. These new guidelines will ensure that the banks are well capitalized, that the details of their investments and loans, like those of any commercial banks, are made available to the FDIC, and that the FDIC and other agencies can prevent a rerun of the Savings & Loan crisis of the 1980s and ’90s.
Meanwhile, private-equity stalwarts have been arguing against those guidelines. If we are to believe these guys, any attempt to rein in private equity’s ability to invest in bank deals would stifle investment and hinder economic recovery.
They promise they’ll play by the rules this time, that we can trust them, that they’re looking out for taxpayers. But we’ve played that game before. And we learned ordinary Americans pay the price when financial markets are unregulated and over leveraged deals—which initially thrived—eventually go bust.
We lose our jobs as our employers cut back or are forced to close their doors altogether. We lose our retirements as the value of the stock market plummets, along with our investments and our pension funds. We lose our homes because we can no longer afford our mortgages after getting laid off or having our hours cut. We lose our recovery when banks cut off the credit our small businesses need to survive.
But hard-working people lose in more ways than this. As homes foreclose and businesses go bankrupt, states and cities lose tax revenue—resulting in cuts to services we depend on. That tax revenue could be used to provide health care for all, develop a new green economy, or foster a world-class education system. But instead of investing in our future, we end up bailing out a reckless financial industry.
Most Americans, like myself, believe in a pretty simple philosophy—that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to get by and raise a family, send your kid to college, and retire with dignity.
That’s been the promise of America for decades—until a handful of people on Wall Street and in Washington figured out how to rig the system against us.
Nobody is trying to stop private-equity firms from making profitable investments. But we need to ensure that the decisions made by a few never again threaten our ability to provide for our families and win a better life for our children. The FDIC’s guidelines are, for two reasons, an important step toward protecting the economy from future financial recklessness.
First, banking is still a relatively new industry for private-equity investors. It’s therefore not unusual for the government to provide them with increased oversight, ensuring their new investments prove sustainable. Private equity’s recent track record suggests that it needs regulation on this front.
For example, the Texas Pacific Group’s (TPG) disastrous investment in Washington Mutual last year prevented the financial giant from raising additional capital until it was too late, resulting in its forced fire-sale to J.P. Morgan Chase. This wiped out TPG’s entire investment.
Then in May, four private-equity investors teamed up to buy BankUnited—a bank with $12.7 billion in assets and $8.3 billion in deposits—for only $900 million. The FDIC committed to share in 84% of the bank’s losses. Though taxpayers subsidized the purchase and took on most of its risk, private-equity firms stood to gain most of the profits.
Second, private equity’s entire business model is based on reworking the connection between risk and reward. In this case, they get all the rewards while the government and taxpayers take on all the risk. This is not the way to stabilize our banking system. The FDIC’s guidelines ensure that more risk is spread out among investors with less saddled onto the taxpayers.
These are the kinds of guidelines that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) called for long before this economic crisis. SEIU wanted to ensure that private-equity firms wouldn’t continue to reap all the rewards of their investments while using workers and taxpayers as a backstop against potential losses and failures.
The FDIC’s new guidelines are a good first step, but full economic recovery will take more. We must continue to act more boldly and more broadly if we are truly serious about building a new financial model that rewards long-term sustainability over quick profits and fad investments.
As I said at the top of this article, Mr. Stern is the president of the Service Employees International Union.
August 4, 2009
Big brand private equity to get the upper hand
The Securities and Exchange Commission Monday released the full, 114-page documentation supporting proposals to ending pay-to-play problems at public pension funds that it made last month.
As sister blog Private Equity Beat points out, reports Scott Austin, the documentation affirms what many placement agents had feared after reading the short initial proposal from the SEC, which was somewhat vague: under the new rules, private equity firms would be banned from using placement agents to solicit business from government pension fund clients.
With regards to venture capital firms, which generally don’t use placement agents as much as buyout firms, this is especially troublesome to the smaller firms that rely on them to raise capital. If this ban does go through - the proposal will be open for comment for 60 days, it may give the so-called brand name firms even more of the upper hand. For reactions, read more in VentureWire….
As sister blog Private Equity Beat points out, reports Scott Austin, the documentation affirms what many placement agents had feared after reading the short initial proposal from the SEC, which was somewhat vague: under the new rules, private equity firms would be banned from using placement agents to solicit business from government pension fund clients.
With regards to venture capital firms, which generally don’t use placement agents as much as buyout firms, this is especially troublesome to the smaller firms that rely on them to raise capital. If this ban does go through - the proposal will be open for comment for 60 days, it may give the so-called brand name firms even more of the upper hand. For reactions, read more in VentureWire….
August 2, 2009
An Act of God?
Those who know me personally will conclude (I hope!) that I am not the type prone to throwing shoes at the television, at least not as early as seven in the morning. So I must confess that, on more than one occasion in recent weeks, I have come perilously close to doing so. The object of my un-desire? The normally level-headed crew that run the Squawk Box morning show on CNBC Europe. Mea culpa; a day hardly passes when I have not been tempted to bung a brogue at the US CNBC crew who – with a few honourable exceptions such as Bob Pisani – are so smug, they cannot see an empty space let alone an empty glass without imagining an overflowing swimming pool. And, for the record, I only watch Bloomberg when I cannot get CNBC; Bloomberg’s Stars and Stripes cheerleading makes CNBC look sober, even sombre!
What is it that so gets my ire up? It is the idea, so widely peddled in the Western media and even sadly in the venerable Financial Times, that we are experiencing a GLOBAL financial crisis. NO! NO! NO! What is happening is first and foremost a WESTERN WORLD financial crisis, a world where Japan is arguably not merely a but the founding member. More people live in countries that will see their nation’s GDP grow this year than live in those that will see it contract. As John Stopford so eloquently put it: “It is the Developed World that is experiencing an Emerging Market crisis.” Yes, of course there have been repercussions for most of the rest of the world, not least in (why am I not surprised?!) that “wagon-still-hitched-to-the-wrong-ox”, South Africa. But in Asia – where the world’s newest economic locomotives are stationed – and Latin America, Russia, the Middle East and much of the rest of Africa – home to the world’s main ‘coal trucks’ – these repercussions are much more akin to the buffetings one might feel when a hurricane passes five hundred miles away: the effects wear off quite quickly.
For completeness however, note that some emerging markets – the passenger cars of Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and Mexico – are marooned in a siding by virtue of being hitched to the ‘out-of-steam’ Puffing Billys of Europe and the US respectively. Unable to be lower cost than Asia, no longer able to sell their migrant workforce into their bigger, richer next-door-neighbours, these emerging markets have found their place in the world’s value adding hierarchy undermined from all sides. In Eastern Europe and the Baltic States in particular, chronically high cross-border, cross-currency debt burdens owed to Western European banking houses mostly in the form of house mortgages are threatening to precipitate maxi-devaluations and sovereign defaults. If Latvia goes, which Eastern European and Baltic houses of cards might tumble down in its wake?
Most other emerging markets however are still moving forward precisely because their houses – be they financial or residential – have not come tumbling down. Of course, as is now well known, in the West, the houses of Lehman’s, AIG, Northern Rock, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been razed to the ground whilst the houses built by the likes of Pulte, Lennar, Horton, Beazer and Taylor Woodrow have crumbled in value. Given the interconnectedness between the financial health of the typical Western banking house with the typical Western residential house, and the fact that the failure of the one has hastened the fall of the other and vice versa, was it any wonder we witnessed a plague on both these Western houses? By contrast, the banks of emerging market locomotives and coal trucks may well be boring but at least in their world, one can still say they are as safe as are their houses (though I fear this simile may have outlived its usefulness! As safe as the Bank of China, perhaps?!)
So why do so many blinkered financial commentators in the West make the mistake of assuming that their current financial crisis is everyone’s financial crisis, that it is truly global?
The first answer is that many hardly recognise that there is a bigger world out there beyond the end of their own national noses – to borrow the title of a Michael Jackson song, they seem to assume “We are the World”! Wrong; they are not, never were and never will be. Indeed, as much as it may gall those who sit in their home-biased business Western TV studios to admit it, there is a whole New World out there beyond the West, a world wherein arguably the greenest pastures open to mobile global capital now lie.
Secondly, these commentators assume that because they are the centre of global finance (which for now they are but, given recent events, this status is now living on borrowed money and so on borrowed time), they jump to the conclusion that what is rotten in the core must by definition be rotten everywhere. Wrong again; yes, the periphery has inevitably been bruised but it is by no means bowed; indeed, much of it is already showing signs of restoring its much higher growth trajectory when compared to the now “Turning Japanese” West. Perhaps their misconception is wrapped up in a naïve and indeed even patronising belief that what afflicts the risk-free (except that it is no longer risk-free!) rate at the centre could not but hurt the higher beta periphery even more. (As a friend in London harrumphed, admittedly in a good-natured jest: “Good God, man, are you trying to tell me that our former colonies are now doing better than we are? What is the world coming to?” What, indeed.).
Thirdly – and Western politicians use this ‘logic’ even more than do its financial commentators – there is a “get-out-of-jail-free” card that suggests if the Browns, Sarkozys and even the late-lamented Bushes can cast their domestic crisis as truly global, they can claim that its causes are largely “beyond us” so, they hope, absolving them of any blame. Like a real tsunami, they must have hoped that if the financial tsunami could be cast as “an act of God”, Western voters would not take out their anger on their Governments. So far, Anglo-Saxon voters are having none of it: “Chuck the incumbents out” has become their rallying call.
As US Republicans have learned and the UK Labour Party has already experienced in local polls and is sure to experience in national polls next year, democracy hath no fury like a house-owner scorned.
But of course, this crisis was not an act of God; it was wholly an act of man and Western politicians of all political persuasions as much as those who elected them in the first place were and are still deeply implicated in this tsunami’s formation.
Our guest blogger is Dr. Michael Power. Dr. Power may be reached at:
email address: Michael.Power (at) investecmail.com
What is it that so gets my ire up? It is the idea, so widely peddled in the Western media and even sadly in the venerable Financial Times, that we are experiencing a GLOBAL financial crisis. NO! NO! NO! What is happening is first and foremost a WESTERN WORLD financial crisis, a world where Japan is arguably not merely a but the founding member. More people live in countries that will see their nation’s GDP grow this year than live in those that will see it contract. As John Stopford so eloquently put it: “It is the Developed World that is experiencing an Emerging Market crisis.” Yes, of course there have been repercussions for most of the rest of the world, not least in (why am I not surprised?!) that “wagon-still-hitched-to-the-wrong-ox”, South Africa. But in Asia – where the world’s newest economic locomotives are stationed – and Latin America, Russia, the Middle East and much of the rest of Africa – home to the world’s main ‘coal trucks’ – these repercussions are much more akin to the buffetings one might feel when a hurricane passes five hundred miles away: the effects wear off quite quickly.
For completeness however, note that some emerging markets – the passenger cars of Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and Mexico – are marooned in a siding by virtue of being hitched to the ‘out-of-steam’ Puffing Billys of Europe and the US respectively. Unable to be lower cost than Asia, no longer able to sell their migrant workforce into their bigger, richer next-door-neighbours, these emerging markets have found their place in the world’s value adding hierarchy undermined from all sides. In Eastern Europe and the Baltic States in particular, chronically high cross-border, cross-currency debt burdens owed to Western European banking houses mostly in the form of house mortgages are threatening to precipitate maxi-devaluations and sovereign defaults. If Latvia goes, which Eastern European and Baltic houses of cards might tumble down in its wake?
Most other emerging markets however are still moving forward precisely because their houses – be they financial or residential – have not come tumbling down. Of course, as is now well known, in the West, the houses of Lehman’s, AIG, Northern Rock, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been razed to the ground whilst the houses built by the likes of Pulte, Lennar, Horton, Beazer and Taylor Woodrow have crumbled in value. Given the interconnectedness between the financial health of the typical Western banking house with the typical Western residential house, and the fact that the failure of the one has hastened the fall of the other and vice versa, was it any wonder we witnessed a plague on both these Western houses? By contrast, the banks of emerging market locomotives and coal trucks may well be boring but at least in their world, one can still say they are as safe as are their houses (though I fear this simile may have outlived its usefulness! As safe as the Bank of China, perhaps?!)
So why do so many blinkered financial commentators in the West make the mistake of assuming that their current financial crisis is everyone’s financial crisis, that it is truly global?
The first answer is that many hardly recognise that there is a bigger world out there beyond the end of their own national noses – to borrow the title of a Michael Jackson song, they seem to assume “We are the World”! Wrong; they are not, never were and never will be. Indeed, as much as it may gall those who sit in their home-biased business Western TV studios to admit it, there is a whole New World out there beyond the West, a world wherein arguably the greenest pastures open to mobile global capital now lie.
Secondly, these commentators assume that because they are the centre of global finance (which for now they are but, given recent events, this status is now living on borrowed money and so on borrowed time), they jump to the conclusion that what is rotten in the core must by definition be rotten everywhere. Wrong again; yes, the periphery has inevitably been bruised but it is by no means bowed; indeed, much of it is already showing signs of restoring its much higher growth trajectory when compared to the now “Turning Japanese” West. Perhaps their misconception is wrapped up in a naïve and indeed even patronising belief that what afflicts the risk-free (except that it is no longer risk-free!) rate at the centre could not but hurt the higher beta periphery even more. (As a friend in London harrumphed, admittedly in a good-natured jest: “Good God, man, are you trying to tell me that our former colonies are now doing better than we are? What is the world coming to?” What, indeed.).
Thirdly – and Western politicians use this ‘logic’ even more than do its financial commentators – there is a “get-out-of-jail-free” card that suggests if the Browns, Sarkozys and even the late-lamented Bushes can cast their domestic crisis as truly global, they can claim that its causes are largely “beyond us” so, they hope, absolving them of any blame. Like a real tsunami, they must have hoped that if the financial tsunami could be cast as “an act of God”, Western voters would not take out their anger on their Governments. So far, Anglo-Saxon voters are having none of it: “Chuck the incumbents out” has become their rallying call.
As US Republicans have learned and the UK Labour Party has already experienced in local polls and is sure to experience in national polls next year, democracy hath no fury like a house-owner scorned.
But of course, this crisis was not an act of God; it was wholly an act of man and Western politicians of all political persuasions as much as those who elected them in the first place were and are still deeply implicated in this tsunami’s formation.
Our guest blogger is Dr. Michael Power. Dr. Power may be reached at:
email address: Michael.Power (at) investecmail.com
July 30, 2009
Trading Places
Speaking to the recent International Economic Forum of the Americas held in Montreal, World Bank President Robert Zoellick commented on how lots of countries around the world would like to trade places with Canada, even though we did not escape the effects of the global economic downturn (our higher resource–driven “beta”.) He added: “Canada has had a fiscal policy managed in its budget pretty soundly over the years”.
The continuing test of this fiscal soundness lies ahead. In the meanwhile, Goldman Sachs singles out Canada as among the first of the advanced economies to emerge from recession. Respected David Rosenberg, now returned home to be the chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates, sees us not having the structural fiscal deficit problems of the U.S. and being well positioned as the economic power shifts towards Asia and China. Reflecting its confidence, the Fidelity mutual fund group has set up an on-site research Team Canada. Expressions of confidence like these keep on growing.
Inflation and its possibly devastating consequences may seem a distant problem at a time of still-serious recession and economic slack. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney do not seem unduly worried shorter-term. At latest count the annual Canadian inflation rate had dropped to a 14-year low of just 0.4%, and four of the provinces, among them even Alberta, had sunk into deflationary territory. Nevertheless, while it may not be an immediate problem, no serious investor should ignore the elephantine inflation risk. Even if months or years early, it seems none to soon to begin taking precautionary action, adjusting investment strategies and re-examining asset mixes in this probability.
On the fixed income side, the renowned Bill Gross of PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund, strongly recommends a shortening of term to maturity. For my part, I now prefer not going much beyond bonds (and bond ladders) of a five-year maturity – and always A-rated. For taxable Canadian investors in need of income there are now attractive resettable (5 year) preferred shares issued mostly by the banks, but also by others. And most definitely not to forget the inflation defence offered by companies that pay and continuously increase their annual dividend payouts.
Our guest blogger is Michael Graham. You can reach him at:
Michael Graham Investment Services Inc.
Tel: 416 360-7530 Fax: 416 360-5566
E: Michael@grahamis.ca
Website at www.grahamis.ca
The continuing test of this fiscal soundness lies ahead. In the meanwhile, Goldman Sachs singles out Canada as among the first of the advanced economies to emerge from recession. Respected David Rosenberg, now returned home to be the chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates, sees us not having the structural fiscal deficit problems of the U.S. and being well positioned as the economic power shifts towards Asia and China. Reflecting its confidence, the Fidelity mutual fund group has set up an on-site research Team Canada. Expressions of confidence like these keep on growing.
Inflation and its possibly devastating consequences may seem a distant problem at a time of still-serious recession and economic slack. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney do not seem unduly worried shorter-term. At latest count the annual Canadian inflation rate had dropped to a 14-year low of just 0.4%, and four of the provinces, among them even Alberta, had sunk into deflationary territory. Nevertheless, while it may not be an immediate problem, no serious investor should ignore the elephantine inflation risk. Even if months or years early, it seems none to soon to begin taking precautionary action, adjusting investment strategies and re-examining asset mixes in this probability.
On the fixed income side, the renowned Bill Gross of PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund, strongly recommends a shortening of term to maturity. For my part, I now prefer not going much beyond bonds (and bond ladders) of a five-year maturity – and always A-rated. For taxable Canadian investors in need of income there are now attractive resettable (5 year) preferred shares issued mostly by the banks, but also by others. And most definitely not to forget the inflation defence offered by companies that pay and continuously increase their annual dividend payouts.
Our guest blogger is Michael Graham. You can reach him at:
Michael Graham Investment Services Inc.
Tel: 416 360-7530 Fax: 416 360-5566
E: Michael@grahamis.ca
Website at www.grahamis.ca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)