Connect with us

International

Regional Bank Update

When any turmoil arises, as it has in the banking sector this year, we begin our analysis with a deep risk assessment. Our conclusion: While we are not…

Published

on

When any turmoil arises, as it has in the banking sector this year, we begin our analysis with a deep risk assessment. Our conclusion: While we are not actively increasing the overall exposure to banks in our U.S. value equity portfolios, we continue to use the market’s short-term volatility as an opportunity to potentially upgrade the quality of the portfolios’ holdings.

Entering the Year

Banks have been well represented across the value indices. Going into the start of the year, they made up about 18% of the Russell 2000 Value Index, 11% of the Russell 2500 Value Index, and 6% of the Russell Midcap Value Index.

But the composition changes between the size of the indices. The midcap value index tracks about 30 super regionals. But smaller regional and community banks—more than 300 of them—dominate the small-cap value index.

The sheer number of banks in the small-cap value index tells us that U.S. banking is still a regional, relationship-based network serving local communities. And while consolidation and roll-ups are likely over time, we believe regional banking will still have a role to play. In other words, the United States is unlikely to look like Canada or Europe, with only a few dominant players. The U.S. economy is much more heterogeneous than the rest of the world, and smaller banks play a role in supporting the diverse local economies in which they reside.

As we started 2023, we were underweight the banking subsector of financials across our Small Cap Value, Small-Mid Cap Value, and Mid Cap Value strategies. This underweight was most pronounced in our Small Cap Value strategy, which had a 15% allocation to banking vs. 18% in the Russell 2000 Value Index.

While our underweight positioning has contributed to relative performance, we by no means were predicting a run on several midsize lenders. So why the underweight?

While earnings pressure and regulation could weigh on returns, we believe most banks should be well equipped to exceed their costs of capital and live to see another day or cycle.

We entered the year cautious about banks because the drivers of their fundamentals didn’t look overly attractive to us. What really drives banks’ share price is loan growth, net interest margin (NIM, which is the difference between deposits rates and other capital costs and the interest rates the bank gets on loans), and credit quality.

As we entered 2023, the first of those fundamentals—loan growth—was still healthy. However, banks took in enormous sums of deposits during the pandemic (due to excess stimulus and the surge in M2[1]), and we believed loan growth would not be able to keep pace. As their deposits grew, some banks responded by purchasing long-dated U.S. Treasurys as their loan-to-deposit ratios were out of whack. Unfortunately, some failed to properly hedge their interest-rate exposure and were forced to mark these assets down as nervous depositors sought liquidity.

Just as important, we believed NIM expansion was peaking or had limited upside—in part because there is now much more competition for deposits. After a decade of not considering an alternative to a checking account rate, investors and savers have more attractive options in money markets or short-dated fixed income. We don’t believe banks will lose all their deposits; they will likely just have to pay more to retain them.

Lastly, credit quality has been pristine to this point, and only has one direction to go if we are entering a period of economic weakness.

So, we entered the year underweight banking, and remain underweight today.

Where Are We Today? 

Immediately after JP Morgan Chase rescued First Republic Bank (FRC), market skepticism shifted to the next-most-exposed banks based on deposit risk and liquidity concerns (such as PacWest). Since the U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) and Treasury were willing to take FRC into receivership and effectively wipe out the equity, short sellers and other market participants have recently bet heavily against other banks that look similar to those that failed.

As patient, long-term value investors, however, we don’t believe all regional and smaller banks should be tarnished. Yes, some of these banks in the crosshairs have similar profiles, but in general, we believe regional banks’ troubles are earnings issues rather than liquidity issues. And from a longer-term perspective, while earnings pressure and regulation could weigh on returns, we believe most banks should be well equipped to exceed their costs of capital and live to see another day or cycle.

And that’s what we’ve heard from the banks we own in our portfolios. The majority have reported first-quarter results—some have shown deposits down by the low single digits, while others actually have witnessed deposit growth. The first quarter was all about the vector of deposits, and for the banks we own, so far so good. As of the week ended in May 10, the latest H.8 data from the Fed (which presents an estimate of weekly aggregate balance sheets for all U.S. commercial banks) indicates that the pace of deposit outflows seems to have stabilized, although it is still falling, since the turmoil began in March. In fact, most of last week’s outflows were concentrated in large banks, not the smaller regionals. Now, that refers to absolute deposit dollars; however, the mix of deposits is clearly changing, with non-interest-bearing deposits coming down as deposits move to higher-yielding alternatives within banks, such as CDs or money markets.

This should continue to pressure NIMs. In terms of their outlook, all of the banks we heard from assumed that the Fed would raise rates in May, further impacting NIM compression in the second quarter (albeit not as much as we have already experienced). But the banks are expecting that situation to stabilize as the Fed is predicted to pause in the second half of the year.

It is important to remember that in the bank universe, not all commercial real estate is created equal.

In terms of loan growth, thus far we are still seeing positive growth. Still, the pipeline has been shrinking over the last several quarters and will likely continue to shrink. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell explicitly called out the recent turmoil in the regional banks, noting that the banks’ initial reaction would be to cool loan growth and tighten credit lending standards, which in turn should help fuel the Fed’s mission of slowing the economy. This pullback was all but confirmed in the recent release of the Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices (SLOOS) data, which showed waning demand and tighter underwriting standards.

Credit, meanwhile, has been pristine thus far. Many banks have called out their commercial real estate exposures—specifically office space, as it is widely expected that this may be the next shoe to drop from a credit perspective. In addition, banks are tightening in construction, hospitality, and senior housing. But they are getting more granular, looking beyond what percentage of their loan book is allocated to office space and adding some color around their loan-to-value (LTV) ratios, occupancy levels, and debt service coverage ranges.

It is important to remember that in the bank universe, not all commercial real estate is created equal. There are many suburban medical offices in the Sunbelt that are thriving, for example. And thus far, in many places, credit issues remain benign. Banks as a whole are more diversified now than they were during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), and underwriting standards have improved. It is also worth noting that while small banks have greater exposure to commercial real estate than large banks, much of the market is now owned by insurance companies, private loan funds, or syndicates. Nevertheless, if commercial real estate is the next source of turmoil, we believe it will materialize slowly.

Another area to consider is multifamily, which banks are still loaning into, highlighting the strong rental rates in select markets. In some areas activity is weakening, but in the Southeast activity is still humming as population migration out of the Northeast and West to the Southeast continues.

So far, then, the outlook has been better than expected, but we remain cautious given how quickly the recent turmoil ensued.

Near-Term Outlook

If all goes well, we will soon return to worrying about “normal” things like a recession as opposed to runs on banks.

Regarding valuations, some banks are currently trading below or at tangible book value (TBV), and we believe that is where we will start to see opportunities, as banks typically bottom before a recession and then begin to outperform once a recession hits.

We believe there are likely to be high-quality banks that are unfairly punished.

That’s because one thing banks tell us about the future is provisioning for loan losses, and banks typically start making those provisions (which they are ramping up now) before a slowdown occurs. These provisions impact earnings now but serve as a leading indicator of where we are headed. Banks tend to experience a “credit migration” (where classified loans on their books move to non-performing), but by the time they actually start taking the charge-offs, they have already reserved for them. And that is the time when their earnings headwind typically starts to abate. In our view, that’s when you really want to go on offense, as that’s also the time the Fed is likely cutting rates.

For banks our preferred valuation metric is price to TBV (P/TBV). Small-mid cap banks currently trade at about 1.1x P/TBV. Historically, the average for smaller banks has been 1.5x P/TBV, with the low end of valuation right at TBV (during most cycles, excluding the GFC). So, today, on an earnings basis, we are below long-term averages, but we believe TBV may have a bit more room to compress as we get closer to a possible recession, especially if it is a deeper recession than most are predicting.

One wild card is how the regulatory picture pans out. Clearly, more regulation is likely to occur as a result of the recent turmoil. We believe this will be focused on banks with assets of $100 billion or more. But even small-cap banks below that asset level usually have some additional burden placed on them as well.

So, it is yet to be seen how regulation will impact the profitability of banks. This likely precludes any merger-and-acquisition (M&A) activity until there is more clarity. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) rates are likely headed higher, depending on the type of lending and deposits, which will vary. All that will factor into the future profitability of banks and what return on their assets they can generate.

Our Strategy

When any turmoil arises, we always start with a deep risk assessment. In this case we started with liquidity, uninsured deposits, deposit concentrations, and commercial real estate exposures, among other metrics.

After re-underwriting the names in our portfolios, we quickly pivoted to looking for opportunities, as we believe there are likely to be high-quality banks that are unfairly punished.

We are seeking top-quality banks trading at discounts to their peer groups and their own trading history. There are also banks that are just now starting to look interesting—ones with top-notch, sticky deposit bases in specific geographies (namely, northern California or the Southeast). We are also starting to identify a few banks that we would not have owned in the past, because they had premium valuations, but are now coming in more in line with the valuation of their peer groups.

These banks’ earnings may be suppressed over the short term, but we are willing to be patient by coming up with conservative valuations that we believe possess limited downsides before starting to nibble.

So, while we are not actively raising the banking weight in our portfolios, we continue to use the market’s short-term volatility as an opportunity to potentially upgrade the quality of the portfolio’s holdings.

Greg Czarnecki is a portfolio specialist for William Blair’s small- to mid-cap value equity strategies. 

Want more insights on the economy and investment landscape? Subscribe to our blog.

[1] M2 is a measure of the money supply that includes cash, checking deposits, and other types of deposits that are readily convertible to cash, such as certificates of deposit.

The post Regional Bank Update appeared first on William Blair.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former…

Published

on

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former Project Veritas & O’Keefe Media Group operative and Pfizer formulation analyst scientist Justin Leslie revealed previously unpublished recordings showing Pfizer’s top vaccine researchers discussing major concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. Leslie delivered these recordings to Veritas in late 2021, but they were never published:

Featured in Leslie’s footage is Kanwal Gill, a principal scientist at Pfizer. Gill was weary of MRNA technology given its long research history yet lack of approved commercial products. She called the vaccines “sneaky,” suggesting latent side effects could emerge in time.

Gill goes on to illustrate how the vaccine formulation process was dramatically rushed under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization and adds that profit incentives likely played a role:

"It’s going to affect my heart, and I’m going to die. And nobody’s talking about that."

Leslie recorded another colleague, Pfizer’s pharmaceutical formulation scientist Ramin Darvari, who raised the since-validated concern that repeat booster intake could damage the cardiovascular system:

None of these claims will be shocking to hear in 2024, but it is telling that high-level Pfizer researchers were discussing these topics in private while the company assured the public of “no serious safety concerns” upon the jab’s release:

Vaccine for Children is a Different Formulation

Leslie sent me a little-known FDA-Pfizer conference — a 7-hour Zoom meeting published in tandem with the approval of the vaccine for 5 – 11 year-olds — during which Pfizer’s vice presidents of vaccine research and development, Nicholas Warne and William Gruber, discussed a last-minute change to the vaccine’s “buffer” — from “PBS” to “Tris” — to improve its shelf life. For about 30 seconds of these 7 hours, Gruber acknowledged that the new formula was NOT the one used in clinical trials (emphasis mine):


“The studies were done using the same volume… but contained the PBS buffer. We obviously had extensive consultations with the FDA and it was determined that the clinical studies were not required because, again, the LNP and the MRNA are the same and the behavior — in terms of reactogenicity and efficacy — are expected to be the same.

According to Leslie, the tweaked “buffer” dramatically changed the temperature needed for storage: “Before they changed this last step of the formulation, the formula was to be kept at -80 degrees Celsius. After they changed the last step, we kept them at 2 to 8 degrees celsius,” Leslie told me.

The claims are backed up in the referenced video presentation:

I’m no vaccinologist but an 80-degree temperature delta — and a 5x shelf-life in a warmer climate — seems like a significant change that might warrant clinical trials before commercial release.

Despite this information technically being public, there has been virtually no media scrutiny or even coverage — and in fact, most were told the vaccine for children was the same formula but just a smaller dose — which is perhaps due to a combination of the information being buried within a 7-hour jargon-filled presentation and our media being totally dysfunctional.

Bohemian Grove?

Leslie’s 2-hour long documentary on his experience at both Pfizer and O’Keefe’s companies concludes on an interesting note: James O’Keefe attended an outing at the Bohemian Grove.

Leslie offers this photo of James’ Bohemian Grove “GATE” slip as evidence, left on his work desk atop a copy of his book, “American Muckraker”:

My thoughts on the Bohemian Grove: my good friend’s dad was its general manager for several decades. From what I have gathered through that connection, the Bohemian Grove is not some version of the Illuminati, at least not in the institutional sense.

Do powerful elites hangout there? Absolutely. Do they discuss their plans for the world while hanging out there? I’m sure it has happened. Do they have a weird ritual with a giant owl? Yep, Alex Jones showed that to the world.

My perspective is based on conversations with my friend and my belief that his father is not lying to him. I could be wrong and am open to evidence — like if boxer Ryan Garcia decides to produce evidence regarding his rape claims — and I do find it a bit strange the club would invite O’Keefe who is notorious for covertly filming, but Occam’s razor would lead me to believe the club is — as it was under my friend’s dad — run by boomer conservatives the extent of whose politics include disliking wokeness, immigration, and Biden (common subjects of O’Keefe’s work).

Therefore, I don’t find O’Keefe’s visit to the club indicative that he is some sort of Operation Mockingbird asset as Leslie tries to depict (however Mockingbird is a 100% legitimate conspiracy). I have also met James several times and even came close to joining OMG. While I disagreed with James on the significance of many of his stories — finding some to be overhyped and showy — I never doubted his conviction in them.

As for why Leslie’s story was squashed… all my sources told me it was to avoid jail time for Veritas executives.

Feel free to watch Leslie’s full documentary here and decide for yourself.

Fun fact — Justin Leslie was also the operative behind this mega-viral Project Veritas story where Pfizer’s director of R&D claimed the company was privately mutating COVID-19 behind closed doors:

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/12/2024 - 13:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Association of prenatal vitamins and metals with epigenetic aging at birth and in childhood

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging…

Published

on

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

Credit: 2024 Bozack et al.

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

BUFFALO, NY- March 12, 2024 – A new research paper was published in Aging (listed by MEDLINE/PubMed as “Aging (Albany NY)” and “Aging-US” by Web of Science) Volume 16, Issue 4, entitled, “Associations of prenatal one-carbon metabolism nutrients and metals with epigenetic aging biomarkers at birth and in childhood in a US cohort.”

Epigenetic gestational age acceleration (EGAA) at birth and epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) in childhood may be biomarkers of the intrauterine environment. In this new study, researchers Anne K. Bozack, Sheryl L. Rifas-Shiman, Andrea A. Baccarelli, Robert O. Wright, Diane R. Gold, Emily Oken, Marie-France Hivert, and Andres Cardenas from Stanford University School of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Columbia University, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai investigated the extent to which first-trimester folate, B12, 5 essential and 7 non-essential metals in maternal circulation are associated with EGAA and EAA in early life. 

“[…] we hypothesized that OCM [one-carbon metabolism] nutrients and essential metals would be positively associated with EGAA and non-essential metals would be negatively associated with EGAA. We also investigated nonlinear associations and associations with mixtures of micronutrients and metals.”

Bohlin EGAA and Horvath pan-tissue and skin and blood EAA were calculated using DNA methylation measured in cord blood (N=351) and mid-childhood blood (N=326; median age = 7.7 years) in the Project Viva pre-birth cohort. A one standard deviation increase in individual essential metals (copper, manganese, and zinc) was associated with 0.94-1.2 weeks lower Horvath EAA at birth, and patterns of exposures identified by exploratory factor analysis suggested that a common source of essential metals was associated with Horvath EAA. The researchers also observed evidence of nonlinear associations of zinc with Bohlin EGAA, magnesium and lead with Horvath EAA, and cesium with skin and blood EAA at birth. Overall, associations at birth did not persist in mid-childhood; however, arsenic was associated with greater EAA at birth and in childhood. 

“Prenatal metals, including essential metals and arsenic, are associated with epigenetic aging in early life, which might be associated with future health.”

 

Read the full paper: DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.205602 

Corresponding Author: Andres Cardenas

Corresponding Email: andres.cardenas@stanford.edu 

Keywords: epigenetic age acceleration, metals, folate, B12, prenatal exposures

Click here to sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article.

 

About Aging:

Launched in 2009, Aging publishes papers of general interest and biological significance in all fields of aging research and age-related diseases, including cancer—and now, with a special focus on COVID-19 vulnerability as an age-dependent syndrome. Topics in Aging go beyond traditional gerontology, including, but not limited to, cellular and molecular biology, human age-related diseases, pathology in model organisms, signal transduction pathways (e.g., p53, sirtuins, and PI-3K/AKT/mTOR, among others), and approaches to modulating these signaling pathways.

Please visit our website at www.Aging-US.com​​ and connect with us:

  • Facebook
  • X, formerly Twitter
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Spotify, and available wherever you listen to podcasts

 

Click here to subscribe to Aging publication updates.

For media inquiries, please contact media@impactjournals.com.

 

Aging (Aging-US) Journal Office

6666 E. Quaker Str., Suite 1B

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Phone: 1-800-922-0957, option 1

###


Read More

Continue Reading

International

A beginner’s guide to the taxes you’ll hear about this election season

Everything you need to know about income tax, national insurance and more.

Cast Of Thousands/Shutterstock

National insurance, income tax, VAT, capital gains tax, inheritance tax… it’s easy to get confused about the many different ways we contribute to the cost of running the country. The budget announcement is the key time each year when the government shares its financial plans with us all, and announces changes that may make a tangible difference to what you pay.

But you’ll likely be hearing a lot more about taxes in the coming months – promises to cut or raise them are an easy win (or lose) for politicians in an election year. We may even get at least one “mini-budget”.

If you’ve recently entered the workforce or the housing market, you may still be wrapping your mind around all of these terms. Here is what you need to know about the different types of taxes and how they affect you.

The UK broadly uses three ways to collect tax:

1. When you earn money

If you are an employee or own a business, taxes are deducted from your salary or profits you make. For most people, this happens in two ways: income tax, and national insurance contributions (or NICs).

If you are self-employed, you will have to pay your taxes via an annual tax return assessment. You might also have to pay taxes this way for interest you earn on savings, dividends (distribution of profits from a company or shares you own) received and most other forms of income not taxed before you get it.

Around two-thirds of taxes collected come from people’s or business’ incomes in the UK.

2. When you spend money

VAT and excise duties are taxes on most goods and services you buy, with some exceptions like books and children’s clothing. About 20% of the total tax collected is VAT.

3. Taxes on wealth and assets

These are mainly taxes on the money you earn if you sell assets (like property or stocks) for more than you bought them for, or when you pass on assets in an inheritance. In the latter case in the UK, the recipient doesn’t pay this, it is the estate paying it out that must cover this if due. These taxes contribute only about 3% to the total tax collected.

You also likely have to pay council tax, which is set by the council you live in based on the value of your house or flat. It is paid by the user of the property, no matter if you own or rent. If you are a full-time student or on some apprenticeship schemes, you may get a deduction or not have to pay council tax at all.


Quarter life, a series by The Conversation

This article is part of Quarter Life, a series about issues affecting those of us in our 20s and 30s. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.

You may be interested in:

If you get your financial advice on social media, watch out for misinformation

Future graduates will pay more in student loan repayments – and the poorest will be worst affected

Selling on Vinted, Etsy or eBay? Here’s what you need to know about paying tax


Put together, these totalled almost £790 billion in 2022-23, which the government spends on public services such as the NHS, schools and social care. The government collects taxes from all sources and sets its spending plans accordingly, borrowing to make up any difference between the two.

Income tax

The amount of income tax you pay is determined by where your income sits in a series of “bands” set by the government. Almost everyone is entitled to a “personal allowance”, currently £12,570, which you can earn without needing to pay any income tax.

You then pay 20% in tax on each pound of income you earn (across all sources) from £12,570-£50,270. You pay 40% on each extra pound up to £125,140 and 45% over this. If you earn more than £100,000, the personal allowance (amount of untaxed income) starts to decrease.

If you are self-employed, the same rates apply to you. You just don’t have an employer to take this off your salary each month. Instead, you have to make sure you have enough money at the end of the year to pay this directly to the government.


Read more: Taxes aren't just about money – they shape how we think about each other


The government can increase the threshold limits to adjust for inflation. This tries to ensure any wage rise you get in response to higher prices doesn’t lead to you having to pay a higher tax rate. However, the government announced in 2021 that they would freeze these thresholds until 2026 (extended now to 2028), arguing that it would help repay the costs of the pandemic.

Given wages are now rising for many to help with the cost of living crisis, this means many people will pay more income tax this coming year than they did before. This is sometimes referred to as “fiscal drag” – where lower earners are “dragged” into paying higher tax rates, or being taxed on more of their income.

National insurance

National insurance contributions (NICs) are a second “tax” you pay on your income – or to be precise, on your earned income (your salary). You don’t pay this on some forms of income, including savings or dividends, and you also don’t pay it once you reach state retirement age (currently 66).

While Jeremy Hunt, the current chancellor of the exchequer, didn’t adjust income tax meaningfully in this year’s budget, he did announce a cut to NICs. This was a surprise to many, as we had already seen rates fall from 12% to 10% on incomes higher than £242/week in January. It will now fall again to 8% from April.


Read more: Budget 2024: experts explain what it means for taxpayers, businesses, borrowers and the NHS


While this is charged separately to income tax, in reality it all just goes into one pot with other taxes. Some, including the chancellor, say it is time to merge these two deductions and make this simpler for everyone. In his budget speech this year, Hunt said he’d like to see this tax go entirely. He thinks this isn’t fair on those who have to pay it, as it is only charged on some forms of income and on some workers.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for this to happen however, and even if it did, there are huge sums linked to NICs (nearly £180bn last year) so it would almost certainly have to be collected from elsewhere (such as via an increase in income taxes, or a lot more borrowing) to make sure the government could still balance its books.

A young black man sits at a home office desk with his feet up, looking at a mobile phone
Do you know how much tax you pay? Alex from the Rock/Shutterstock

Other taxes

There are likely to be further tweaks to the UK’s tax system soon, perhaps by the current government before the election – and almost certainly if there is a change of government.

Wealth taxes may be in line for a change. In the budget, the chancellor reduced capital gains taxes on sales of assets such as second properties (from 28% to 24%). These types of taxes provide only a limited amount of money to the government, as quite high thresholds apply for inheritance tax (up to £1 million if you are passing on a family home).

There are calls from many quarters though to look again at these types of taxes. Wealth inequality (the differences between total wealth held by the richest compared to the poorest) in the UK is very high (much higher than income inequality) and rising.

But how to do this effectively is a matter of much debate. A recent study suggested a one-off tax on total wealth held over a certain threshold might work. But wealth taxes are challenging to make work in practice, and both main political parties have already said this isn’t an option they are considering currently.

Andy Lymer and his colleagues at the Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing at Aston University currently or have recently received funding for their research work from a variety of funding bodies including the UK's Money and Pension Service, the Aviva Foundation, Fair4All Finance, NEST Insight, the Gambling Commission, Vivid Housing and the ESRC, amongst others.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending