What Type of a Corner is the Economy Turning?

Is the economy turning a corner? And, if so, which corner is it turning?

In my view, economic activity has been influenced by two separate trends since 2007. One is the structural response to an over-leveraged household sector that pushed the US economy into what was initially a mild recession. The second trend is the sharp cyclical recession that began in earnest in the second half of 2008 as the commodity price shock decimated already weakened households and the deepening credit crunch cut financing for a broad swath of firms. Excess capacity emerged throughout the economy, triggering the familiar phenomenon of rising unemployment. Difficult though they may be, the cyclical dynamics do not last indefinitely - generally speaking, output declines stop well short of zero GDP and unemployment will not rise to 100%. Market participants are rightly anticipating the economy is turning the corner on the cyclical trend. But I suspect we have a long path ahead of us on the structural challenge poised by overleveraged households - suggesting that the green shoots we hear so much about will yield little more than stunted growth. Hence why the risk remains that Bernanke and Co. are more likely to fertilize the fields than plan for the next harvest.

If there is one picture that sums up the cyclical story of the past year, it is the path of real consumption (click to enlarge):

The sharp deceleration has come to an end, of that there can be little doubt. Nor should there be much surprise. The collapse in commodity prices, lower interest rates to allow mortgage refinancing for those homeowners still above water, and tax cuts all joined to provide powerful support for household budgets allowing consumption to stabilize despite the massive job losses experienced in recent months. The stabilization in consumer demand will eventually slow the pace of job cuts. Indeed, this is already evident in the data - analysts have pointed to peak of initial claims as a key hurdle in the race to recovery. To be sure, it is difficult if not impossible to characterize the data flow as "good." But it is certainly less "bad." The path to Great Depression II has hit something of a speedbump. And seeing that, market participants have priced out some of the most cataclysmic scenarios, supporting equities and commodities while pushing bond yields higher.

There will be more opportunities for euphoria - do not underestimate the power of pent-up demand to trigger bursts of positive data. There is a portion of the population who are not credit constrained, biding their time for the perfect moment to buy a new car or schedule a vacation. Indeed, such bursts of data are more likely than not following a sharp decline in activity (the 2.2% gain in consumption spending in 1Q09 is such an example). I believe, however, that those bursts of data will not be sustainable. Far from it - at a minimum, the ability of households to carry activity forward is at its end, which by itself would leave the economy floundering .

I think it is difficult to ignore the implications of the growth of consumer dominance in defining patterns of economic activity (click to enlarge):

The story of the last 25 years has been an increasing role for household spending, rising to perhaps a peak of conspicuous consumption, with the motto "a filet mignon in every stainless steel oven, a RV in every garage." Patterns of economic development - more to the point, capital formation - have favored taking advantage of this trend. Countless business plans are based on the expectation that this trend will continue. The baby boomers have endless wealth (not so anymore, if it ever was), there is a never ending supply of equity rich Californians to support our [insert locality] housing market, etc. Those plans will be stressed, to say the least, if the trend stalls. The implications for a reversal are even more significant. And for those that believe reversal is necessary, note that the reversal has really not even begun. What took 25 years to build may take another 25 years to destroy.

How sure are we that the trend is at an end? My thought is that the factors that supported the trend - a steady march down in the saving rate to zero and a steady march up in household debt, coupled with monetary policy that had room to go from 15% short rates to zero over nearly three decades, are at an end. Even if you believe that savings rates will not rise to 12%, the inability to sustain below zero rates puts a limit on household spending growth (as well as debt accumulation). And with underwriting conditions tightening - a permanent tightening, given the changing regulatory environment - the role of debt financing in the life of the consumer is sure to stagnate.

The challenge then is to transition the economy away from the debt-supported consumption trend that looks no longer viable to a trend more reliant on investment and external spending. This, however, is easier said than done. How quickly can 25 years of growth directed at consumer spending be reversed? And reversed to what, especially if the rest of the world continues to struggle? I see little hope of an "immaculate conception" of a fresh, sustainable pattern of economic activity. Until the transition path reveals itself, fiscal policy will be necessary to fill the economic hole likely to exist if the savings proclivities of households continue to exceed the investment intentions of firms.

Ironically, the "best" road to growth is also the riskiest from a policy perspective - a rapid expansion of emerging market activity. Such an expansion, however, would once again place the US in competition for global resources, and threaten a reversal of the commodity and interest rate trends that have been so important to supporting US consumers. Indeed, just the whiff of recovery has supported oil prices, promising an abrupt end to one of the factors supporting US consumers. In the worst case scenario, a flight of capital away from the dollar (in response to more promising investments abroad) would generate an inflationary and structural shock that would leave the Fed juggling between renewed recession and higher inflation. In short, the optimal external shock would be one only partially supportive; anything more would push the globe to a revisiting of the commodity price surge of early 2008. Looking for a decoupling story now, however, seems like almost a naïve dream.

What is the Fed's next move? One email crossed my inbox after the April employment report suggested some thinking that the Fed could hike rates as early as November. Such a scenario (absent a stability threatening run on the dollar) must come from a spectacularly optimistic take on incoming data. Data, I might add, that is a reflection of the massive crutch provided by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury, not necessarily a sea change in the underlying economic environment. Look too how quickly bond rates began to climb after the Fed declined to expand Treasury purchases at the last FOMC meeting. More generally, consider this tidbit on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's thinking back in 2003:

The 2003 FOMC transcripts showed then-Governor Ben Bernanke very tuned into financial markets as he pressed for earlier release of Fed forecasts and a willingness to lower interest rates to zero.
From the June 2003 FOMC meeting, when the Fed lowered the target fed funds rate to 1%:

“I wonder if you might give some thought to whether or not it would make sense tactically to say publicly that we are willing to lower the federal funds rate to zero if necessary…I think it would have a beneficial effect on expectations in that there would no longer be a feeling in the market that we had reached the end of our rope.”

“It’s extremely important that we do what we can to maintain the supportive configuration in financial markets. That means continuing our easy monetary policy and, even more important, using our statement to signal our willingness to keep policy easy so long as there is a risk of further disinflation and continuing economic weakness."

A year and a half after the end of the 2001 recession, Bernanke was looking at the possibility of lowering rates to zero in order to maintain support for financial markets. And comparatively, financial markets were leaps and bounds healthier in 2003 than now. Is a rate hike really feasible this year - or even next - given the current state of dependence of the financial system on government largess? Moreover, consider the disinflation worries in 2003 and fast forward to last week:

Even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while, implying that the current slack in resource utilization will increase further. We expect that the recovery will only gradually gain momentum and that economic slack will diminish slowly. In particular, businesses are likely to be cautious about hiring, implying that the unemployment rate could remain high for a time, even after economic growth resumes.

In this environment, we anticipate that inflation will remain low. Indeed, given the sizable margin of slack in resource utilization and diminished cost pressures from oil and other commodities, inflation is likely to move down some over the next year relative to its pace in 2008. However, inflation expectations, as measured by various household and business surveys, appear to have remained relatively stable, which should limit further declines in inflation.

Now consider the output gap over the last decade (click to enlarge):

The current gap already far exceeds that of the last disinflationary scare, and Bernanke expects it to continue to expand further, and then diminish only gradually. As long as the gap continues to expand, Bernanke's bias will be in favor of additional easing. The only question is whether he remains content to allow TALF funds to slowly trickle into the economy, or speeds the pace of policy with expansions of longer dated Treasury purchases. Given Bernanke's past behavior, expecting patience on his part seems unrealistic. Moreover, the last jobs report provides less room for optimism than observers suggest. Importantly, Jim Hamilton notes the decline in hours worked appears unabated; threat of a currency collapse aside, there will be no policy tightening, only easing, until hours worked moves unquestionably and sustainably in a positive trajectory.

Bottom Line: The economy looks to be turning a corner relative to the downward cyclical force of last year. But this is only a partial victory, as the factors that started us down this path - namely, a debt-supported consumer spending dynamic - remain in play, and will likely remain in play for years, arguing for a long period of slow growth, punctuated by short-lived bursts of positive data. In such an environment, and considering the importance of government support to sustain financial stability, the odds favor continued policy easing. Those looking for a more positive scenario are pinning their hopes on either an unlikely rapid return to past patterns of consumer behavior, an unlikely rapid evolution in patterns of economic activity that are not consumer dependent, or a decoupling of emerging market economic activity from the US (which could pose a different set of policy challenges).

Comments

[Jeff Nielson:]

Anyone who parrots what Ben Bernanke says obviously does not have a clue what is going on in the U.S. economy.

The fact that the U.S. economy is plummeting downward at a SLIGHTLY lower rate is not even remotely suggestive of an "economic recovery" (the 5th "recovery" which Bernanke has already predicted).

Not only is there ZERO chance of a U.S. "economic recovery", but the U.S. will soon start ACCELERATING downward again - as there is simply no STRENGTH of any kind in the U.S. economy - other than Plunge Protection Team-boosted equity markets.

May 12 09:56 AM

[Jasper M:]

Amen, Jeff.
Our economy is like our banks - How in the world can an economy saddled with this much debt recover, when it has simply no means to service that debt?

May 12 10:25 AM

[LilBob:]

I have to say I mostly agree with this article, and it reflects what I've been thinking all along. Statements that we're going to have a "V-shaped" recovery sound vastly over-optimistic to me. I'd say a more accurate chart of the markets' declines and future economic growth will look more like the letter "L", tilted about ten degrees to the left.

May 12 11:53 AM

[Leftfield:]

I won't go over a, necessarily, partial list of problems we face (aging baby boomer demographics aren't mentioned nearly enough--forget spend-till-you-drop forever for that reason alone).

Our whole system and economy are based on huge debt and continued expansion. It was/is incredibly leveraged and brittle. Many more shoes remain to drop. We've already defict-spent, a continuation is problematic at best.

This is a corner in a maze.

May 12 11:58 AM

[Carlos Lam:]

I am a broken record on this subject: US household debt is at 100% of GDP. Until this debt is paid down, there's simply no way that true economic growth is possible. We have spent way too much on homes, granite countertops, and plasma TVs. What's worse, the government/Fed combine encouraged us to do so with easy money and inane statements about going shopping to show terrorists that we're strong.

We need to decrease consumption & increase savings so that entrepreneurs will be able to create businesses, produce products, and hire employees. It'll be painful, but we simply are unable to spend our way to prosperity.

May 12 12:03 PM

[LilBob:]

> We need to decrease consumption & increase savings so that entrepreneurs
> will be able to create businesses, produce products, and hire employees.

I agree with you 100% there Carlos. I've been working on a portfolio of products that I intend to make the seed of a small manufacturing interest for some time now. The problem I've been having is that the venture capital firms and "angel-investors" I've encountered so far have ridiculous expectations for returns. You can't run an honest and legitimate operation, and provide your customers with good quality products and services when the group funding you expects you to double their money within six months. The numbers just don't work out.

Economic recovery will largely depend upon investors being matched up with entrepreneurs in such a way so that entrepreneurs with really strong business plans can obtain startup capital at realistic interest rates.

May 12 12:32 PM

[bricki:]

Very interesting article, thanks Tim.

I'm a believer in the demographic forces determining a lot of what goes on in the economy, and surely the baby boomers have a lot to do with the rise in percentage of the economy dependent on consumer spending. However the impact of demographics on consumption in the US is better than it a lot of other major economies; Japan and Germany for example have lower birth rates, and fewer immigrants. The US population is still growing even though the boomers have had their families, we have a birth rate near replacement and immigrants to cause growth. Japan and Germany have a far grimmer picture.

The result is that while I expect savings rate to increase and some sectors of the population to slow down on spending I don't really see much of a significant drop in current overall consumer spending. The echo boomers are the second largest cohort in US history and are hitting their prime spending years.

On the other hand I do agree that were are probably in a period were the spending as a percentage of the total economy will be flat for a while, and that business plans based on that percentage increasing are likely to be losers.

May 12 01:18 PM

[fxmaven:]

I will pay close attention when the Chinese start spending like Japanese. Then all will be OK (for non-Chinese).

May 12 02:01 PM

[Gyoza Mimi:]

Cetin,

Post after post you solidify my believe that you are just a bot used as a test of a system developed to decompose and comprehend articles. The comprehension side is quite sophisticated. The creative side is lacking, but overall, good job.

On the creative side, you need to add a function to your scanner to review articles from other sources. For instance, about POT, sales of the crop nutrient reached a virtual halt and POT cuts its forecast - this is available freely everywhere. Yet, you trumpeting the rise of POT among other stocks you don't seem to have any idea about.

May 12 02:37 PM

[nobby73:]

I read that the US government will borrow 46% of its spending this year - the question is, can the Treasury market take this? If it can, will yields blow out, will the dollar come under too much pressure, will they be able to keep short term rates low and will mortgage rates stay low enough to kick some life back into the housing market? Despite what people might like to believe, there is not unlimited appetite for T-bonds out there, unless it's all going to those mysterious Cayman Island funds?

The flaw with believing you can borrow your way out of the downturn is the fact that consumption is such a high proportion of GDP: the massive levels of personal debt have been generated to support consumption, not investment, so there is not the investment income to offset the interest costs.

I am not sure there is a way out of this one - weakening of the dollar and inflation are unavoidable, let's see if it can be done at a manageable rate...

May 12 02:58 PM

[Carlos Lam:]

On May 12 12:51 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:
>
> That's not necessarily true. Debt shouldn't be shunned provided it
> is used to create growth. Loans (which is debt by definition) are

Cetin, I realize that my argument is strictly from the Austrian School and that you seem to be more of a Keyensian,but purchases of consumer products ISN'T growth. Going into debt to purchase equipment that will help manufacture products IS real growth. Going into debt to purchase insulation which will, in turn, decrease utility costs, IS real growth. Buying a plasma TV ISN'T real growth; the TV doesn't produce any income, decrease expenses, or retain its value.

May 12 03:50 PM

[Market Sniper:]

Same fundamental problem. Some seem to continue to believe that you can borrow your way to wealth (good debt, no problem..IF you can put the borrowed capital to work to produce real wealth and beat the vig on the borrowed capital) and the government (through a private central bank) can print its way to prosperity. Consumer debt to fuel economic expansion is a mirage that we have just seen through, no good end comes from THAT road. Now from whence will come the capital for such a true economic expansion as the Federal Government crowds out the private sector in competition for scare savings? Only job growth I see is in the public sector as the private sector continues to wilt.

May 12 04:33 PM

[Orlando:]

There are two parts to the economy:
1- the cash/commodity economy is stabilizing, maybe even improving. However, with increases to the minimum wage (since 2007), don't expect unemployment to come down quickly. I think the author is on mark here.
2- the credit economy is dead right now. Here I disagree with the author. If GDP is really money velocity (V) x money supply(say M2+), then the suggested GDP figures indicate that money velocity is slowing down drastically to depression era levels. Don't look for inflation or gdp growth anytime soon... like say a few years. There maybe a blip or here or there, but overall it's a disaster that no one is really paying attention to. The FED is going to run out of options eventually. Money velocity peaked right before the Asian financial crisis in the 1990's (2.2? or so) and has been declining ever since. It reached a low of around 1.1 in 1933-35. From the present level to 1.1 represents another 30% fall even with expansionary money supply AND it WILL TAKE years to GET there. The present policy imitates what the FED did during WWII, it helped the economy to get us through the war, but there was little GDP growth.

May 12 04:40 PM

[inflation:]

First of all there is absolutely no way the the FED will begin raising interest rates in November of this year. That is just not going to happen.

And Cetin H, how in the world can you say with a straight face that a 4% savings rate is too high? Are you serious?

You say that savings stifles growth, but real growth can only be financed by true savings. You can't have it both ways. You also say that we inflated our way to prosperity in 2003, which I am sorry to say is just plain silly. All we did from 2003 onward was to create a false illusion of wealth which fed a consumption frenzy that defied logic. Letting people buy homes that were 5-10 times their earnings was never going to end well. That is not wealth and it is not prosperity by any definition.

The government needs to get out of the damn way and let us take our medicine. We will be better off in the long run.

May 12 04:49 PM

[Frohickey:]

How are nominal wages rising when people are being laid-off, or having their hours cut?

You maybe right however that personal savings rate might go lower. People out of work, or at home more have more chances of spending their money and shopping. Old habits die hard.

A change in attitude would be needed to move from debt-supported consumption to investment/external spending. This would probably need an public service announcement blitz through all of media markets. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening at all. Again, old habits die hard. Plus, the federal/state government would need to be fully engaged in this, and I don't see that. The feds haven't put away their credit cards yet.

On May 12 11:59 AM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> That;s not going to happen. The debt is sustainable because hose
> hold net worth and nominal wages keep rising.
>
> The US consumer is important, but this importance is being lessened
> progressively due to globalization and free trade. Companies like
> Apple, Wallmart, McDonald's, Google, Potash, and mastercard are thriving
> because of foreign sales. Americans still have access to tons of
> liquidity and and are still maxing out credit cards, but unfortunately
> the personal savings rate is at 4%, which is too high. By the end
> of the year I expect that figure to return to negative, where ti
> will remain, thus helping the economy. Consumers need to do their
> part and spend more instead of being frugal.
>
> ----------------------...
> The challenge then is to transition the economy away from the debt-supported
> consumption trend that looks no longer viable to a trend more reliant
> on investment and external spending. This, however, is easier said
> than done. How quickly can 25 years of growth directed at consumer
> spending be reversed? And reversed to what, especially if the rest
> of the world continues to struggle?

May 12 04:56 PM

[Tetrapod:]

Good analysis! Excellent article. You've summed up the dilemma we're in very well, and I agree with your analysis of how the Fed will respond. The real situation only becomes known when, because of the structural problems you mentioned, the stimulus fails to ignite the real economy. For a time, the Fed will continue to ease, which will keep the economy on the level, but what to do once the inevitable inflation and interest rate increases start to show? That's when the pain really begins. Do we tighten policy and crash the already fragile economy, or continue to inflate, causing the dollar to crash? Both, unfortunately lead to the same result: decline of real wages and standard of living. The best-case scenario I can see is if we can somehow keep the economy afloat with only mild (8-20%) inflation for 5-10 years, we can inflate away our structural problems (consumer debt, corporate debt, and government debt) and then return to real growth. If we can walk that razor's edge and get to the other side, we'll come out okay.

May 12 05:06 PM

[fnu149:]

Simply look at the US Personal Consumption Chart you have, do you think the consumption correction will be finished? Looking at your chart will lead to an easy assumption that we already see the bottom in consumption contraction in December.

However, there is a difference between looking at past data to determine the next trend than thoroughly analyze what is happening around us and reasonably predict what will happen next.

My view is that this type of recession will ultimately cause another next leg down in consumption contraction. This will really surprise the market because it is now not expecting that.

May 12 05:40 PM

[Sober Realist:]

The fed and government have shown they are determined not to let the free market work. Using public funds to prop up and reward losers is destructive to the economy in the medium and long run. Here's an unbelievable piece showing how the government is now subsidizing new home buyers who can't even come up with 3% down:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Until our current experiment as a Socialist Super State ends in disaster, don't expect a return to true free market remedies.

May 12 07:44 PM

[Moon Kil Woong:]

Great comments everyone. Yes, the economy is turning another corner. It's the corner where the Fed and Treasury pay for their easy money policies yet again. This time with higher inflation.

You would think the Fed would learn after Greenspan. Manipulating interest rates to abnormal lows never solved anything. It only primes the pump for a major catastrophe later. Economically speaking, it's like asking to get hit on the head so you pass out in order to prevent a toothache. In the end you, avoid present day pain for much worse pain than when you started when you wake up and smell reality.

May 12 11:25 PM

[EMS News:]

Home ownership is a SKILL. One has to have many life lessons before the adventure of house ownership. Everyone I have ever known who got a house as a gift, abused the house and often, lost it. If one works hard to save a down payment and then goes into the affair, eyes wide open, succeeds over the course of one's life. Seldom is one ready to own below the age of 30 years. I finally owned my own first house when 29 years old. After working as a super in apartment brownstones. Knowing how to fix things, how to deal with the plumbing and electricity, how to supervise repairs, etc, is a life skill.

Just learning how to do housework and yardwork is a life skill. Often, when we look at people's houses, we find them in varying degrees of difficulties. For example, a host of inexperienced people bought McMansions which have vast roof surfaces to keep up, little knowing that they have to save approximately $8,000 over the course of 15 years for roof repairs, for example. Or save $3,000 over 15 years for repairing those 5 bathrooms. Utter insanity.

Replacing heating and cooling systems every 25 years or more, is another problem. So, a repair fund of over $12,000 is needed and most people get a second loan to do these things. Only...if the value of the house drops, they can't do this! This is why the fad for buying a house that eats up too much income is so dangerous, especially when we are talking about 7,000 sq ft mansions.

The consumer spending on bigger and bigger houses is now at an end. We will go through a 20 year down cycle where the unlucky people stuck in very big houses will learn why all those immense mansions built pre-1907 were turned into rooming houses. This is part of a historic 100 year cycle. For example, all the immense mansions of 1880 England had to be abandoned.

Too much debt parked on too big houses is not easy to recover from. Every day one of the bigger houses stand empty, they become bigger white elephants. For example, after WWII, many of the Victorian White Elephants were being abandoned or torn down. I and others bought these things for a song and ripped out all the wiring and plumbing and rebuilt the roofs, the basements and fixed them and during the bigger/bigger/bigger boom, sold them for profit. But now, that is over.

We go back into the 'small is good' phase again. And frankly, that can be a relief.

May 13 01:21 AM

[Peter Cooper:]

Nowhere close to a true bottom, I am afraid to say, just have a look at the facts and try to think realistically and not optimistically, see:
arabianmoney.net/2009/.../

May 13 02:20 AM

[HardwoodFlo...:]

I think that working in an M2 money supply analysis would have been germain to the post. For as you imply, the consumer is the key to the recovery. As such getting an idea on the consumers overall financial health is important.

May 13 12:19 PM

[Fred Voetsch:]

"The sharp deceleration has come to an end, of that there can be little doubt."

I have much doubt. Most such trends tend to pause along the way and often pick up steam as they climax.

May 13 02:45 PM

[jj Roberts:]

Excellent comments all you realists; the blind bulls dwell in a cave of ignorance trying to create their own reality (i.e. "The Emperors Clothes"). The Depression #1 showed how government spending (misallocated resources) failed miserably and that the resultant high taxes (first 79%, then 90% on over achievers) destroyed the green shoots. We even paid farmers to bury food while many of our most economically crippled citizenry were starving (God forgive us!). Then we end up with the misconception that a World War saved us from the Depression, when it only extended it years beyond. If only the Austrian Bank Crisis of 1931 (which led to the election of the "messianic" Hitler) hadn't further destroyed suffering economies and led to further government involvement (interference), there may have never been a Europe on fire. Amazing how powerful bad money can be, but for the illusion of phony wealth, we all keep striving after those numbers. It is my opinion that the economy will continue to contract until middle of 2010. There is no corner to be turned this year at all. The stimulus bill will have no substantial effect until 2011 and that will be very little. What we need immediately is a FICA holiday on every worker in the U.S. and let all business keep the matching contribution. 7.6% to all workers (15.2% if self employed) and 7.6% to business on payroll would immediately liquify the economy and increase velocity. This dynamic monetary stimulus would also be without prejudice since all parties could spend it as they wish, thus engaging the free market. Statists cannot tolerate this, because they lose their imagined purpose-"CONTROL". Micro-management by the Government will NEVER WORK!!!!

May 14 01:46 AM

[EMS News:]

Britain and France stupidly decided to expand their empires after going very deep in debt during WWI. Unlike before WWI, the natives objected much more forcefully and fought very hard. France and England had to get MORE LOANS to fight in Iraq, the Holy Land, Africa and Asia. They had to squeeze Germany over reparations and the only way Germany could pay up was to go to the US for MORE loans so the US was bankrolling all of Europe's goofy empires, all at once, Germany, France, England, etc!

This is why Japan found the Europeans to be such pushovers. Japan just had to bicycle into a British or French or Dutch colony and voila! They won. They began surrounding the European colonies during the 1920's, by the way.

When none of the goofy, land-grabbing warmongering European empires could pay back the US, our own banking system went bankrupt. This is what happens to banks that lend to goofy empires. I think the Chinese know this. This is why they are preparing to ditch the dollar before the dollar dies on them.

May 14 11:35 PM

[yellowhoard:]

EMS,

You're insights are profound. Keep it up.

May 14 11:47 PM

[yellowhoard:]

So who's the biggest insurance short, Hartford?

May 15 09:05 AM

[mayes:]

Well, it’s shocking and needed an immediate attention to sort out at the earliest.

I am very pleased with the thought and don’t feel like adding anything in it. It’s a perfect answer.

Every dark night is followed by a bright sunny day. So, patience and attention is required and things will be fruitful in near future.

There is nothing called a free lunch is this world. If things needed to be resolved then initiative needs a support to be sorted out.
bruce
Fort Lauderdale homes for sale

May 26 09:51 AM