Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Bbc: Total National Debt Per Household = £90,000


Recommended Posts

Yes, I agree.

To be precise (as there is always some inflation), the question is: how much of this debt will be inflated away?

And how?

on balance sheet debt cannot be inflated away - there are conditions built into gilts these days

off-balance sheet can and will be inflated away as the people who are owed it (PFI companies and public servants) won't understand it until it is too late

my money is on them getting absolutely hammered

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

on balance sheet debt cannot be inflated away - there are conditions built into gilts these days

off-balance sheet can and will be inflated away as the people who are owed it (PFI companies and public servants) won't understand it until it is too late

my money is on them getting absolutely hammered

Yes, some gilts are "Index-linked gilts", and some are "Conventional gilts" ( http://www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx?page=gilts/about_gilts )

And the UK government has been trying to sell a lot of these "Index-linked gilts" in the past 1 or 2 years. But most of the British government debt is still in "Conventional gilts", and this debt would be eroded away by inflation - very good, in the long term.

But the problem then becomes the short term. With inflation investors will require a very high IR for conventional gilts, or will go for the Index-linked. And these won't be erode - unless the government tampers with the inflation index in the future. Because of this suspicion, according to The Economist, investor will require high IR here too.

This gov. debt will be very expensive, for us and for our children.

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting
Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC: Total National Debt Per Household = £90,000

Radio 4, PM, yesterday (Thursday, 29 April)

- - -

This week the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) published a report on the national debt, annual budget deficit, and necessary budget cuts.

The BBC got all these mindbogglingly big national numbers from the IFS report, and to bring them "down to earth", the BBC divided them by the number of households in the country - 25.5 million households.

It starts at 50min 50sec into the program. About 5 minutes long:

LINK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00s2pk1

"PM", Radio 4, BBC, Tursday, 29 April 2010.

The results are (if didn't make any mistake transcribing them) :

Cuts per household per year:

£1,350 from the Lib Dems

£1,700 from Labour

£2,000 from the Conservatives

Deficit = Annual borrowing

Debt = Stock of all the money that the government owes, on-balance-sheet.

Official National Debt = on-balance-sheet

Off-balance-sheet "debts" (obligations) : PFI + Public Sector Pensions.

National numbers:

776 bn - National Debt (official, "on-balance-sheet" debt)

almost 20% more - PFI (off-balance-sheet)

770 bn - Public Sector Pensions (off-balance-sheet)

Per household:

£30,000 - National Debt

£5,000 - PFI

a few hundred pounds either way - Banks Bailout

£30,000 - Public Sector Pensions

£65,000 - Total Now

£25,000 - Borrowing in the next 4 years

£90,000 - GRAND TOTAL

.

Heres a different way of looking at this, lets assume the working population are going to picking up the bill for this - rather than the retired and unemployed, the UK has a working population of 33.6 million and for comparison lets assume 2 workers per household - so divide by 16.8 million working couples instead of 25 Million households

Per Working couple:

£45,536 - National Debt

£7,589 - PFI

a few hundred pounds either way - Banks Bailout

£45,536 - Public Sector Pensions

£98,661 - Total Now

£37,946 - Borrowing in the next 4 years

£136,607 - GRAND TOTAL

Edit - math fail

Edited by oligotroph
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I knew all along that it has been much smaller than the left-leaning people imagine, but I am not sure it has been <b>this </b>small - only £ 6 billions?

It's probably predicated on the shares RBS/Lloyds getting sold at a massive profit. There is a large exposure, and a large assumed "potential" the "investment" might be recovered. I don't think anyone knows what the final bill will be, but I doubt it will be a rounding error. To put this in perspective, RBS was the worlds biggest company by assets that could not - allegedly - be nationalised for fear of bankrupting the UK, and the NR exposure (i.e. not loss) alone was £1e11.

This says the total exposure is £8.5e11: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/04/bailout-bank-national-audit-office-report though that includes deposit protection. I am not sure what the other figure for "taxpayer support" they mention (£1.3e11) means. Either way, it can all certainly go very wrong yet, and probably will unless the underlying problems have somehow been fixed without me noticing (rather than made worse by postponing them and making sure the banking system was consolidated to a point where hardly anything at all can be allowed to fail).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably predicated on the shares RBS/Lloyds getting sold at a massive profit. There is a large exposure, and a large assumed "potential" the "investment" might be recovered. I don't think anyone knows what the final bill will be, but I doubt it will be a rounding error. To put this in perspective, RBS was the worlds biggest company by assets that could not - allegedly - be nationalised for fear of bankrupting the UK, and the NR exposure (i.e. not loss) alone was £1e11.

This says the total exposure is £8.5e11: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/04/bailout-bank-national-audit-office-report though that includes deposit protection. I am not sure what the other figure for "taxpayer support" they mention (£1.3e11) means. Either way, it can all certainly go very wrong yet, and probably will unless the underlying problems have somehow been fixed without me noticing (rather than made worse by postponing them and making sure the banking system was consolidated to a point where hardly anything at all can be allowed to fail).

Yes, the number must be higher than £6 billion. On the other hand, since this issue has become highly political, The Guardian can't be trusted as an impartial source.

But there is one thing that looks firmer: If The Guardian says the total cost is £131bn we can be reasonably sure that it will not be more than that. Otherwise the Guardian would probably have gone for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont wanna emigrate... :( It will be such a hassle!!!

:(

Turns out me & mrs xux's most valuable assets might be our 2 boys* - both lined up to read degrees which are in strong demand worldwide.

So they get sponsorship to emigrate. We sell up & go and live, and later work, with them. Earn strong currency while the quid sinks.

Wait while everyone stuck in the UK goes through the pain.

Come back in our late 50s, or whenever the UK economy is recovering - provided the NHS is a better bet than healthcare where we are. Or just stay.

Job done?

*well of course they are, anyway, come what may

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a different way of looking at this, lets assume the working population are going to picking up the bill for this - rather than the retired and unemployed, the UK has a working population of 33.6 million and for comparison lets assume 2 workers per household - so divide by 16.8 million working couples instead of 25 Million households

Per Working couple:

£45,536 - National Debt

£7,589 - PFI

a few hundred pounds either way - Banks Bailout

£45,536 - Public Sector Pensions

£98,661 - Total Now

£37,946 - Borrowing in the next 4 years

£136,607 - GRAND TOTAL

Edit - math fail

Yes, I think this whole "household" stuff is a bit pointless. Better to divide per working people (I'll even include Public Sector workers here to avoid polemic.)

The BBC divided the total debt by the number of households in Britain (25,500,000 household), and got to £90,000 / household.

Hence the total debt was 25,500,000 households x £90,000 = £2,295,000,000,000.

You say the UK has a working population of 33.6 million.

So, £2,295,000,000,000 / 33,600,000 working people = £68,300 / working person

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think this whole "household" stuff is a bit pointless. Better to divide per working people (I'll even include Public Sector workers here to avoid polemic.)

The BBC divided the total debt by the number of households in Britain (25,500,000 household), and got to £90,000 / household.

Hence the total debt was 25,500,000 households x £90,000 = £2,295,000,000,000.

You say the UK has a working population of 33.6 million.

So, £2,295,000,000,000 / 33,600,000 working people = £68,300 / working person

.

A better reason to include public sector workers is not to avoid polemic but rather to not be stupid.

Regardless of the income source of the public sector workers, they will still be contributing, via taxation, to the asset side of the public accounts.

Their liability to the public accounts (i.e. their salaries and benefits) is already included in the total debt figures you have given.

To consider this salary liability yet not include the part of this liability they pay back in taxes would be stupid.

Wouldn't it?

Yes.

Edited by mirage
Link to post
Share on other sites

The £90,0000 figure was mentioned by Janet Street-Porter on Thursday's BBC1 Question Time and the audience didn't (or couldn't) respond. It was either stunned silence or the figure was beyond comprehension for them.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article10990.html

Labour Governments Bankrupt Scorched Earth UK Economy for the Conservative Government

(The reference to the Conservative government is likely because the link was written when the Conservatives looked almost certain to win the coming election)

Look at the bar chart "UK Tax Payer Liabilities" about 1/3rd down.

In 2010 UK Tax Payer Liabilities = £3.9 trillion.

In 2013 UK Tax Payer Liabilities = £4.4 trillion.

Add £1.4 trillion of personal debt gives £5.3 trillion and £5.8 trillion respectively (assuming the figure for personal debt stays the same upto 2013).

£3.9 trillion divided by 25.5 million households = £153,000 per UK household for 2010......................(Tax Payer Liabilities).

£4.4 trillion divided by 25.5 million households = £173,000 per UK household for 2013.......................(Tax Payer Liabilities).

£1.4 trillion divided by 25.5 million households = £55,0000 per UK household (2010 and 2013).........(Personal Debt)

So adding £153,000+£55,000 = £208,000 Total per UK household for 2010.

So adding £173,000+£55,000 = £228,000 Total per UK household for 2013.

Taking the BBC's figure of £90,000 and adding on the £55,000 for personal debt = £145,000 for 2015 compared with the Marketoracle figure of £228,000 for 2013.

It seems that the BBC's £90,000 figure per household for 2015 doesn't give the full picture (still) for UK household liabilities and likely it should be nearer £228,000 - and the £228,000 is Marketoracle's figure just for 2013, who knows what it'll be projected to be by 2015.

I believe the Marketoracles figures more but at least the BBC's figures are (belatedly) starting to be in the right ball park.

And as another poster pointed out not every household pays tax!

Whether the figure is £90,000 or £228,000 it's still huge. What they've done to the UK economy is SHOCKING!!

Edited by billybong
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

The £90,0000 figure was mentioned by Janet Street-Porter on Thursday's BBC1 Question Time and the audience didn't (or couldn't) respond. It was either stunned silence or the figure was beyond comprehension for them.

(The reference to the Conservative government is likely because the link was written when the Conservatives looked almost certain to win the coming election)

Look at the bar chart "UK Tax Payer Liabilities" about 1/3rd down.

In 2010 UK Tax Payer Liabilities = £3.9 trillion.

In 2013 UK Tax Payer Liabilities = £4.4 trillion.

Add £1.4 trillion of personal debt gives £5.3 trillion and £5.8 trillion respectively (assuming the figure for personal debt stays the same upto 2013).

£3.9 trillion divided by 25.5 million households = £153,000 per UK household for 2010......................(Tax Payer Liabilities).

£4.4 trillion divided by 25.5 million households = £173,000 per UK household for 2013.......................(Tax Payer Liabilities).

£1.4 trillion divided by 25.5 million households = £55,0000 per UK household (2010 and 2013).........(Personal Debt)

So adding £153,000+£55,000 = £208,000 Total per UK household for 2010.

So adding £173,000+£55,000 = £228,000 Total per UK household for 2013.

Taking the BBC's figure of £90,000 and adding on the £55,000 for personal debt = £145,000 for 2015 compared with the Marketoracle figure of £228,000 for 2013.

It seems that the BBC's £90,000 figure per household for 2015 doesn't give the full picture (still) for UK household liabilities and likely it should be nearer £228,000 - and the £228,000 is Marketoracle's figure just for 2013, who knows what it'll be projected to be by 2015.

I believe the Marketoracles figures more but at least the BBC's figures are (belatedly) starting to be in the right ball park.

And as another poster pointed out not every household pays tax!

Whether the figure is £90,000 or £228,000 it's still huge. What they've done to the UK economy is SHOCKING!!

How does this 14 year debt roll over/pay back thing apply to all this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this 14 year debt roll over/pay back thing apply to all this?

Good point. From memory there was a link/report recently (can't find the link unfortunately) suggesting that the 14 year period was an exaggeration and an average and a shorter period applied. Some would be due relatively soon. It would be interesting to see some analysis of the debt rollover/pay back periods.

Edited by billybong
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Good point. From memory there was a link/report recently (can't find the link unfortunately) suggesting that the 14 year period was an exaggeration and an average and a shorter period applied. Some would be due relatively soon. It would be interesting to see some analysis of the debt rollover/pay back periods.

Thing is, as long as the debt is increasing due to deficit . . . the UK isn't paying back . . . is it?

I get horribly confused by all this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, as long as the debt is increasing due to deficit . . . the UK isn't paying back . . . is it?

I get horribly confused by all this.

You're not the only one. As I understand it the debt is increasing due to the deficit and the deficit increases due to the increasing interest on the debt. Compound interest style or a bit like the Sorcerer's Apprentice.

The link I referred to above (the one I can't find) also made the point that when the UK did want rollover it would likely be competing with huge rollover demands from other countries.

http://www.businessinsider.com/european-banks-prepare-for-1-trillion-debt-rollover-tidal-wave-2010-2

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

You're not the only one. As I understand it the debt is increasing due to the deficit and the deficit increases due to the increasing interest on the debt. Compound interest style or a bit like the Sorcerer's Apprentice.

The link I referred to above (the one I can't find) also made the point that when the UK did want rollover it would likely be competing with huge rollover demands from other countries.

http://www.businessinsider.com/european-banks-prepare-for-1-trillion-debt-rollover-tidal-wave-2010-2

I don't think you and me are going to get a pension dude.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you and me are going to get a pension dude.

No thanks to guess who currently at Number 10 who seems to have gone out of his way to wreck everyones pensions - except his own and the other parliamentary gold platers. So that's where the gold went ;)

On debt rollover there's this link.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/195614-report-from-europe-sovereign-debt-concerns-abate-for-now

The UK is again reducing its debt rollover ratio over the coming year. At almost the same level as Greece, that is no guarantee of protection. The US has left itself exposed to seizure of markets with a 40% rollover ratio.

And nuff said if it's the same as Greece.

Edited by billybong
Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

Regardless of the income source of the public sector workers, they will still be contributing, via taxation, to the asset side of the public accounts.

Their liability to the public accounts (i.e. their salaries and benefits) is already included in the total debt figures you have given.

To consider this salary liability yet not include the part of this liability they pay back in taxes would be stupid.

(...)

In part, yes, like I wrote in post 25 above:

Sorry, but... no. Unfortunately.

In a way, in economic terms, their "taxes" don't really exist. It is just a number written in their payslip. If the gross salary is £25,000, and they "pay" 25% tax, they actually just get £18,750 NET. The government doesn't really send them the £25,000 and they send back the £6,250. They just receive their net-pay. Simple.

On the positive side though, for us, tax-payers, the actual, NET payroll is a bit smaller than in these formal accounts.

The main advantage to see the accounts as they are - NET - is to nip in the bud the very common (and very dangerous) mistake of imagining that public expenditure can be a sustainable way to "stimulate the economy" - distortion of Keynesianism very common now-a-days in the British Labour Party. It is not sustainable. An inflated public sector is not affordable by a private sector weighed down by too much taxes.

And if a government then starts to borrow to pay these expenses, then it just makes things worse, by having to pay interest, and accumulating debt for the next generations - as this government has done, and is still doing.

Sorry.

In terms of public accounts, the "taxes" paid by public sector workers appears in both sides, as part of salaries that the government has to pay, and as taxes to be received. And they neutralise each other. In terms of macroeconomics, it is more clear if you see the NET numbers.

In terms of government debts, public sector taxes (Edit for clarity: the "taxes" paid by public sector workers) are not part of the on-balance-sheet national debt, and are not part of the PFI. They may only be a small portion of pensions liability - if some pensioners have to pay some taxes.

In general, it is always much better (real, healthier) to see the NET liabilities.

A better reason to include public sector workers is not to avoid polemic but rather to not be stupid.

(...)

To consider this salary liability yet not include the part of this liability they pay back in taxes would be stupid.

Wouldn't it?

Yes.

Sorry but you came across a bit rude in the quotes above. I don't know if this is your case, but but I've noticed that, for some people, usually public sector workers, the fact that public sector workers are not net-tax-payers is not only surprising, but also makes them feel angry. I am not sure why. Perhaps they think we in the private sector don't value their work. Not me. I think good public services and good infrastructure are essential, in any country.

Edited by Tired of Waiting
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, as long as the debt is increasing due to deficit . . . the UK isn't paying back . . . is it?

I get horribly confused by all this.

Deficit just means shortfall. The UK government spent, this past year, some 650 billions , but collected in taxes only some 490 billions. So, there was this shortfall ( "deficit" ) of 650 - 490 = 160 billion.

Like anybody, they have borrowed this money.

So, the total government debt, if it that was some 700 billion last year, is now 160 higher = 860 billion.

And no, we are not paying any debt back. All parties are planning only to reduce gradually the annual shortfall, to about half that, in about 4 years.

So, in 4 years time we will still be borrowing about 80 billion per year. And the national debt will be... well higher. (Sorry, lost the energy to do the maths. A bit down here now.)

( By the way, all the number above are very "rounded", of course, and from memory, so please don't quote me there, but they are in the right "ball park" area like. )

Edited by Tired of Waiting
Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a different way of looking at this, lets assume the working population are going to picking up the bill for this - rather than the retired and unemployed, the UK has a working population of 33.6 million and for comparison lets assume 2 workers per household - so divide by 16.8 million working couples instead of 25 Million households

Per Working couple:

£45,536 - National Debt

£7,589 - PFI

a few hundred pounds either way - Banks Bailout

£45,536 - Public Sector Pensions

£98,661 - Total Now

£37,946 - Borrowing in the next 4 years

£136,607 - GRAND TOTAL

Yes, I think this whole "household" stuff is a bit pointless. Better to divide per working people (I'll even include Public Sector workers here to avoid polemic.)

The BBC divided the total debt by the number of households in Britain (25,500,000 household), and got to £90,000 / household.

Hence the total debt was 25,500,000 households x £90,000 = £2,295,000,000,000.

You say the UK has a working population of 33.6 million.

So, £2,295,000,000,000 / 33,600,000 working people = £68,300 / working person

Yes, or just dividing the GRAND TOTAL figure above by 2

£136,607 / 2 = £68,303

Of course if the working population were to fall then thats going to leave more debt for the rest of us to pay, the mini population boom in 1946 after the war (64 years ago) means that an 'extra' 250,000 people are about to retire in the next couple of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Deficit just means shortfall. The UK government spent, this past year, some 650 billions , but collected in taxes only some 490 billions. So, there was this shortfall ( "deficit" ) of 650 - 490 = 160 billion.

Like anybody, they have borrowed this money.

So, the total government debt, if it that was some 700 billion last year, is now 160 higher = 860 billion.

And no, we are not paying any debt back. All parties are planning only to reduce gradually the annual shortfall, to about half that, in about 4 years.

So, in 4 years time we will still be borrowing about 80 billion per year. And the national debt will be... well higher. (Sorry, lost the energy to do the maths. A bit down here now.)

( By the way, all the number above are very "rounded", of course, and from memory, so please don't quote me there, but they are in the right "ball park" area like. )

I know that bit me old mucker, it's the debt maturity thing I'm not clued up on and how that plays in all this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, or just dividing the GRAND TOTAL figure above by 2

£136,607 / 2 = £68,303

Of course if the working population were to fall then thats going to leave more debt for the rest of us to pay, the mini population boom in 1946 after the war (64 years ago) means that an 'extra' 250,000 people are about to retire in the next couple of years.

:lol:

Yes, that would have been easier...

Oh well, at least we confirmed the numbers now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In part, yes, like I wrote in post 25 above:

You haven't addressed your error, which to remind you, was to agree that the total debt figures being discussed should be divided by non-public-sector households rather than all households.

You subsequently presumably realised this and started going on about net figures. You say that using net figures would reduce the risk of thinking Keynesian stimulus would be of benefit. I don't follow that argument, but it is not relevant to the original problem. You can only consider the debt in terms of the net liabilities on privately employed households if you have the figures. You only appear to have figures that mandate the inclusion of public sector households as taxpaying assets.

In terms of public accounts, the "taxes" paid by public sector workers appears in both sides, as part of salaries that the government has to pay, and as taxes to be received. And they neutralise each other. In terms of macroeconomics,
Yep. And you are considering the liability side of the public accounts so you must consider the asset side too. Quite contrary to your posts earlier in the thread.
it is more clear if you see the NET numbers.

Not particularly.

Taxes and wages may be changed independently. The one doesn't follow as a matter of accounting necessity from the other, so it is not clear what the total future net liability would be. Considering the liability and asset side separately makes it easier to consider changes in them separately.

In terms of government debts, public sector taxes are not part of the on-balance-sheet national debt, and are not part of the PFI. They may only be a small portion of pensions liability - if some pensioners have to pay some taxes.
I'm not sure that makes any sense. Taxes are not part of the debt?
In general, it is always much better (real, healthier) to see the NET liabilities.
Not when considering taxation policy it isn't. If you are only looking at net liability then if you alter taxes to meet the liability, the liability changes too! It's actually confusing. Since taxation policy and public sector pay policies are determined and implemented by separate mechanisms, it is generally simpler to consider them separately in accounting terms. In other words to fix one whilst looking at the other.

If you follow your line of argument, then we must net the public debt of all private sector tax receipts that are dependent on public sector spending (and those that are prevented by it). That would be difficult, to say the least.

Sorry but you came across a bit rude in the quotes above. I don't know if this is your case, but but I've noticed that, for some people, usually public sector workers, the fact that public sector workers are not net-tax-payers is not only surprising, but also makes them feel angry. I am not sure why. Perhaps they think we in the private sector don't value their work. Not me. I think good public services and good infrastructure are essential, in any country.

I have a brusque internet persona. I thought that agreeing that splitting those debt figures between only private sectors households/workers was pretty stupid.

Your current point is perfectly true on one level (an obvious schoolboy one), but then if the public sector worker were to be fired and rehired by the state at the same expense as a private contractor, what difference would it really make? What difference would it make if instead they were rehired by a private company who in turn were contractors for the state? In reality there is no economic iron curtain between the state and private sectors. Neither is there a binary distinction between "wealth producing" private sector activity and parasitic state activity. It is impossible to define clear boundaries between "wealth producing" and other activities even within the private sector.

What matters is the decision making process that determines the total allocation and organisation of resources in an economy. If you believe that the decision making role of government in this should be relatively small (and I would have a lot of sympathy with that view), then total taxation should be small. Fair enough.

What an individual worker gets paid will be a function of their market price in the total economy, where both state and private actors are buyers. The real problem that some people have with state workers is usually that they feel the state is overpaying for their services, because of dysfunction of this market (i.e. agent problems on the buyer side). This can certainly be a problem with the state, but then it is also a huge problem in the private sector. Simply considering the state worker as a net liability, rather than both a liability and an asset, complicates the issue generally in contention - the correct price for their labour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that bit me old mucker, it's the debt maturity thing I'm not clued up on and how that plays in all this.

Sorry. Misunderstandings.

About the maturing part of it, it seems that the UK debt has a long "profile" - as they call it. I mean, in a chart, it goes well into long term, unlike Greece, say, that has a lot of short term debt.

The UK government has a site with this numbers. I found it once, but then lost it. Sorry.

But every year some portion of the gov. debt does mature, and the government has to pay it. But like anyone in deep sh!t, the gov can't pay it now, and has to borrow from some other sources, kind of "re-mortgaging" it.

But this is increasing the interest rates, as the UK government current "credit score" is worse than before. And it will get worse still.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 441 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.