Inflation or Deflation? How to Tell

We'll use terms that are practical and simple: "money" is the funds used to settle the purchase of goods and services, "price inflation" is a basket of trade weighted average of prices rising, where the basket is infrequently changed (or else there would be a downward bias from substituting less expensive, lower quality items), and "monetary inflation" is the expansion of 'money' used to make purchases, irrespective of whether that new money finds it's way into prices quickly or not.

Since we are considering money to be 'spendable funds', a deposit balance in a bank qualifies as money, because it can be transferred to another account (by check or other means) even though this balance is technically bank debt (the bank owes the depositor reserves). This makes sense because if deposits were to collapse, spendable funds would shrink, and we would undergo severe price deflation. The bank deposit balance also is expected to be redeemed at least at par under all circumstances. Clearly bank deposits are used economically as 'money'.

For our purposes then, money is spendable funds which are cash plus deposits.

First question is then, is money (cash plus deposits) rising or falling?

Answer: it is rising slowly. You can see total deposits by looking at commercial bank liabilities, line 31, and cash by looking at the Federal Reserve Bank's liabilities (currency in circulation), and by observing the charts of deposits below:

While total bank credit after a mark-to-market writedown may be contracting, the liability side is not going to contract as the Fed will "print" as much money as is needed to cover bank liabilities should there be a need for it. The fiscal authorities will further backstop the deposit liabilities (partly by FDIC, partly by capital support, and partly by Fed assistance) on the bank's balance sheet. We can reliably conclude that deposit growth is not likely to significantly reverse despite the value of bank assets not covering those deposits.

An important side question: since deposits are in large measure generated by new loans which are re-deposited, how are deposits kept stable if most banks are not extending loans to replace the loans that are extinguished (by defaults, by short-payoffs, and by normal payoffs)?

Answer: government guarantees are absorbing bank losses on old and new loans (note the backstop of FNMA and FHLMC and the large numbers of loans for FHA done through banks). Government guarantees allow replacement of those loans extinguished by default or by payoff.

In addition the Fed purchases bonds that finance the government spending deficit with new money. Since this is an injection of income without a corresponding drain, deposits continue to grow. Concurrent with this, the Fed has provided increased reserves so that interbank clearing will still occur despite banks fearing the solvency of other banks. Banks do not need to rely on another bank having the power to borrow reserves or have discountable paper to ensure clearing occurs.

For now, this money has 'papered over' the clearing problems of an insolvent banking system and FASB has fallen in line by allowing banks to hold items on their books at par that really are not worth par.

What determines whether a particular bank will fail is then the net cash flow accruing to the capital account and the size of the reserves if the net cash flow is negative. This is one major reason banks are not going to sell inventory of bad loans as quickly as would be expected, because the losses would have to be 'realized' in the capital account and the bank would then be forced to cease operations.

It is important to realize that over time the activity of papering over losses severely weakens the banking system. There are two categories of entities: those that put value into the currency and those that take it out. "Printing money" is taking value out if it funds poor assets in comparison to the yield gained, (a worker puts value in, someone else takes a portion of that work for each new dollar printed that funds a bad or too-risky endevour).

Printing money to cover the bad actions of banks makes the economy weaker and the banks stronger in the short run, but everyone becomes weaker in the long run. The banking system cannot exist independently of a good economy; neither can the government for that matter.

Second question: Who is getting the expansion of new money?

If new money is not 'disbursed', despite a large dollar amount of total support, general price deflation can still result. Taking a look at Q/Q growth in tax withholding shows a massive contraction in income. This correlates with the implosion in sales tax receipts of those states that collect sales taxes. In this area, officials, if they believe in Keynesianism, have failed by that criteria to disburse support widely enough to stop the contraction. It is likely, however, without government stimulus, GDP would be revised to another minus 6%, rather than the smaller losses being posted.

Third question: what does market psychology say about the effect of an expansion of funds?

An excess supply of money does not necessarily create a positive rate of inflation. Why? Consider what you personally would be doing right now if you earned a spare million dollars as a one-off event. First thing, seeing so many people 'on the street' or being forced into living with relatives, you'd probably pay off or buy a house which would replace a bank loan for that property with reserves that go to the bank.

The bank, failing to find many good borrowers in this climate and fearing negative cash flow, would not fully expand those reserves into new loans. Instead, the bank will park the reserves at the central bank to earn interest until such time as good borrowers or good collateral can be found.

The rest of your fortune you might spend purchasing a bank CD and use the interest to help you survive, or seeing the darker future for many skills, perhaps fund yourself to go back to school to attempt to hedge against losing earning potential in the future. It is unlikely you'd squander the funds on consumptive spending (which is good!). None of these activities are very price inflationary except to schools of good quality versus their cost. Higher cost schooling, in contrast, has been hard hit, as the funds and the payoff for going to top-notch schools was very much driven by the bubble in finance. The road to success has become much narrower using old strategies.

The overall effect of psychology can be seen already: a large increase in bank reserves residing at the central bank for transactions, an increase in volume of low-cost and intermediate schooling, and less of the new money exchanging hands in the economy.

The expansion of money thus drives down interest rates to zero and the economy slows until such time as enough entities fail from negative cash flow, decreasing the drain on resources until the economy can self-fund. One school of thought is getting this over quickly is better (in other words, avoid the situation in Japan). Another school says that could create secondary effects which would make the correction worse. Either way, in very few cases is new borrowing going to occur except for essentials like for home purchases and then only with stringent guidelines.

A good proxy for spending can be seen by looking at retail revenues at organizations such as Wal-Mart (WMT), Target (TGT), Costco (COST) (Sam's Club) and other large retailers. Note that upscale retailers are likely to do more poorly than discount stores when things are tough. Wal-Mart was an excellent leading indicator (clearing of inventory at local stores and slowing revenue) of the subprime problems, but the stock price wasn't a good indicator because of the shift in consumer buying from higher-end to discount stores benefited Wal-Mart.

Also keep in mind, the stock market is frequently one of the first asset markets to undergo price inflation from new money, meaning stock prices can be very misleading and are not usually as important as financial data.

The behavior change of the consumer has occurred not because there isn't enough 'spending', but because people do not collectively believe (and accurately so), that there will be a sustained recovery until adjustments are made so that income matches expenditures.

While it is comforting to believe that the government can simply 'print income' and offset a depression, this is not the case. Capital spent on things such as a top-notch education for financial engineering cannot be shifted quickly to other fields without significant funds, effort, and time. An educated person in finance can't quickly shift to used car mechanics and be productive. Since the ‘collateral’ for money and government finance and bank loans is production, the overuse of monetary stimulus will spiral us down.

This illustrates an important side point: there are REAL economic realities that must be addressed that can't be papered over. There is a shortage of productive activities to adequately pay down debt in real terms and the debt must either be reduced by markdown (better) or price inflation (terrible, as price inflation would destroy and withdraw additional savings that fund recovery). Until many lower-valued activities cease, the economy cannot properly recover.

There is one other piece of the analysis that is important - the global situation. Will the international concern about the collateral backing the dollar (U.S. government solvency and the productive base that funds it) drive the value of the dollar independently of the collective behavior of the U.S. citizens? The answer, I believe, is not quite, because although the dollar is bad, it is not so bad as many other countries. However, there are enough nuances to require another article, which I will post soon.

Suffice to say at present, unless there is an unbelievable amount of new money stimulus widely disbursed that is sufficient to shift a decent percentage of psychology, it is increasingly unlikely that price inflation will occur, and more likely, since the Fed has arrested the expansion of its balance sheet and the fiscal authorities appear to be slowly spending the stimulus, that the reverse will continue to occur.

In summary, we can look at four things to determine the future direction of inflation:

1. The expansion of money: cash and deposits (Commercial bank deposits, Cash on the Fed's balance sheet)
2. Composition of new money as shown in incomes (Q/Q tax withholding, State sales taxes)
3. Psychology of spending versus saving (Composition of spending) and the continued need for correction (existence of too many entities that cannot self-fund)
4. International situation in respect to the dollar (soon to be posted under the title "What's Coming Next With Government Finance?")

Finally, it's worth repeating, since it is so often mistaken, that a recovery is entirely something different than money mechanics. The economy cannot recover without the real production necessary to generate good collateral for loans. In this way, we MUST take a correction so that valued production and new lending can occur. Resisting the correction indefinitely results in a Japan-like situation, where they have even 20 years later, not fully recovered.

Disclosure: Jim holds no positions in regards to this article.

Comments

[chap08:]

No, no, no. This is how to tell. Ask yourself:

1. What do the Fed and Govt want?
Answer: they want inflation.
2. Do they have the power to achieve it?
Answer: yes they do.

At the moment, we are seeing evidence of recovery and attention is turning to withdrawing stimulus. Think about that: we have the most severe deflationary circumstances we have seen in our lifetimes and all we see is patchy, mild and temporary deflation. Nothing like a deflationary equivalent of the 70s.

Currently, there's no need to wheel out the big guns. There may well be another leg down. If so, we will see more Fed action. If we had a real problem, we would see the full monetization of big spending programs, pumping money directly in to consumers pockets. Whatever the size of deflationary problem, the tools exist to fix it. Sure there's pain in doing it, but people more powerful than you have chosen inflationary pain over deflationary pain. Read Bernanke's statements on what he would do. That tells you what will happen.

Sep 09 06:50 AM

[Roger Knights:]

"Costco (COST) (Sam's Club) and other large retailers.

Sam's Club is a division of Wal-Mart. (The Sam refers to Sam Walton.)

"Note that upscale retailers are likely to do more poorly than discount stores."

"Worse" is the mot juste.

Sep 09 07:08 AM

[NUCLEAR1929:]

it depends if you are buyer or seller, if you bought 2ct diamond ring for $30,000 in 2007 (inflation) and now to raise cash to pay back debt you go to a pawn shop and you get for this diamond $6000 (deflation)
got it?

Sep 09 09:17 AM

[Donald Ingram:]

Deflation is with us and is active vis a vis wages, groceries and rents etc. Will this end in a deep wage/price, self feeding deflationary spiral? Time will tell. We wont' be out of woods when the bottom of the deflationary period ends - then begins inflation. If the nation is very unlucky it could end in hyperinflation. Not to worry , "Benny and his economic jets" have a plan to withdraw excess liquidity before this happens. Wow! This is what frightens me!

Sep 09 10:51 AM

[Michael Clark:]

> Deflation is with us and is active vis a vis wages, groceries and
> rents etc. Will this end in a deep wage/price, self feeding deflationary
> spiral?

Yes.


On Sep 09 10:51 AM Donald Ingram wrote:

> Deflation is with us and is active vis a vis wages, groceries and
> rents etc. Will this end in a deep wage/price, self feeding deflationary
> spiral? Time will tell. We wont' be out of woods when the bottom
> of the deflationary period ends - then begins inflation. If the nation
> is very unlucky it could end in hyperinflation. Not to worry , "Benny
> and his economic jets" have a plan to withdraw excess liquidity before
> this happens. Wow! This is what frightens me!

Sep 09 10:58 AM

[Michael Clark:]

The Japanese have been trying to re-inflate their economic bubble for 20 years -- and couldn't do it. It's not so simple as what the Fed wants the Fed gets. The Fed is fighting for inflation. But it looks like the Fed is losing this fight.


On Sep 09 06:50 AM chap08 wrote:

> No, no, no. This is how to tell. Ask yourself:
>
> 1. What do the Fed and Govt want?
> Answer: they want inflation.
> 2. Do they have the power to achieve it?
> Answer: yes they do.
>
> At the moment, we are seeing evidence of recovery and attention is
> turning to withdrawing stimulus. Think about that: we have the most
> severe deflationary circumstances we have seen in our lifetimes and
> all we see is patchy, mild and temporary deflation. Nothing like
> a deflationary equivalent of the 70s.
>
> Currently, there's no need to wheel out the big guns. There may well
> be another leg down. If so, we will see more Fed action. If we had
> a real problem, we would see the full monetization of big spending
> programs, pumping money directly in to consumers pockets. Whatever
> the size of deflationary problem, the tools exist to fix it. Sure
> there's pain in doing it, but people more powerful than you have
> chosen inflationary pain over deflationary pain. Read Bernanke's
> statements on what he would do. That tells you what will happen.

Sep 09 11:00 AM

[Michael Clark:]

JB: Your conclusion -- "Finally, it's worth repeating, since it is so often mistaken, that a recovery is entirely something different than money mechanics. The economy cannot recover without the real production necessary to generate good collateral for loans. In this way, we MUST take a correction so that valued production and new lending can occur. Resisting the correction indefinitely results in a Japan-like situation, where they have even 20 years later, not fully recovered." -- is exactly right. We think we are tricking the devil -- Mister Bernanke is like Faust trying to trick Mephistopheles -- but we had a contract with the devil: if we were going to expand, to accept wealth, glory, conquest, empire -- we are also going to have to take the correction, the fall, the contraction, the pain, the lack of glory, the decline. The two parts go together. There is not tricking the devil by finding small print in the contract. Greenspan and Bernanke are the 'small small print men', looking for a loophole...if we just keep printing money we won't have to pay back the devil. Myabe we'll just default on the devil's loan. Sorry. If you choose Day, you also choose Night.

Sep 09 11:24 AM

[JeffDB:]

"First question is then, is money (cash plus deposits) rising or falling?

Answer: it is rising slowly."
------

But according to the Fed's numbers, M1 (Cash in circulation + Current Deposits Held by Money Holders at the commercial banks) www.federalreserve.gov... has gone up 19.9% year over year, which I would consider rising a bit more than "slowly".

M1 (billions of $) research.stlouisfed.or...
1383.3 8-16-08
1658.2 8-17-09

Graph: www.scribd.com/doc/193...

If you add in (All types of Deposits Held by Money Holders at commercial banks) - ie money market funds, etc. we would have M2 which as risen a little in excess of 8% year over year, which I would also consider a little above "rising slowly".

8312.4 8-17-09
7691.4 8-18-08
621 / 7691.4= .0807 increase year over year

research.stlouisfed.or...
Graph: www.scribd.com/doc/193...

Sep 09 12:55 PM

[JeffDB:]

"An excess supply of money does not necessarily create a positive rate of inflation. Why? ... Instead, the bank will park the reserves at the central bank to earn interest until such time as good borrowers or good collateral can be found."

But I was under the impression that bank reserves at the central bank were not counted as a part of the money supply. Is that incorrect? If not, it would seem that the money "in circulation" is still increasing even after subtracting that money parked at the central bank.

Sep 09 01:04 PM

[Jim Bradley:]

Jeff - The increases of transactions money (M1) is not flowing through the system to generate new deposits (which are show by the graphs above), so there's an effect in M1 which isn't being fully transmitted. While the rate of M2 growth has been high, it is slowing, not increasing. See M1 at research.stlouisfed.or... and M2 at research.stlouisfed.or...

The bottom line effects are mixed, but I believe the recent monetary changes will show a pop in inflation, then it will settle down later. If recent data holds, it already is.

On Sep 09 12:55 PM JeffDB wrote:

> "First question is then, is money (cash plus deposits) rising or
> falling?
>
> Answer: it is rising slowly."
> ------
>
> But according to the Fed's numbers, M1 (Cash in circulation + Current
> Deposits Held by Money Holders at the commercial banks) www.federalreserve.gov...
> has gone up 19.9% year over year, which I would consider rising a
> bit more than "slowly".
>
> M1 (billions of $) research.stlouisfed.or...
>
> 1383.3 8-16-08
> 1658.2 8-17-09
>
> Graph: www.scribd.com/doc/193...
>
> If you add in (All types of Deposits Held by Money Holders at commercial
> banks) - ie money market funds, etc. we would have M2 which as risen
> a little in excess of 8% year over year, which I would also consider
> a little above "rising slowly".
>
> 8312.4 8-17-09
> 7691.4 8-18-08
> 621 / 7691.4= .0807 increase year over year
>
> research.stlouisfed.or...
> Graph: www.scribd.com/doc/193...

Sep 09 01:50 PM

[JeffDB:]

On Sep 09 01:50 PM Jim Bradley wrote:

> Jeff - The increases of transactions money (M1) is not flowing through
> the system to generate new deposits (which are show by the graphs
> above), so there's an effect in M1 which isn't being fully transmitted.
> While the rate of M2 growth has been high, it is slowing, not increasing.
> See M1 at research.stlouisfed.or...
> and M2 at research.stlouisfed.or...;br/>
>
> The bottom line effects are mixed, but I believe the recent monetary
> changes will show a pop in inflation, then it will settle down later.
> If recent data holds, it already is.
>
Thanks for the reply.

I think that the "velocity" of the money is pretty low now, which is helping to keep inflation in check for the moment, but like you, I'm expecting a pop in inflation, though I think it won't be a temporary pop. With our debt and deficit at very high levels and foreign governments expressing reservations about the dollar, and the UN coming out in favor of a basket of currencies to be used as the world's reserve currency in lieu of the dollar, all point to the likelihood that the upcoming tidal wave Treasuries are going to be more difficult to auction off at low interest rates in the future and will probably have to be monetized by the Fed, which will put us in an unpleasant, to say the least, spiral of an increasing money supply causing inflationary expectations and higher interest rates, which increases the deficit, ...

Sep 09 02:22 PM

[Tony Daltorio:]

Japan - a very small, closed society is NOT a valid example to compare to the US. The actions the Japanese took is nothing like the actions the Fed has already taken and WILL take in the future.

Also please tell me where the much-vaunted deflation is except in the price of assets (housing, US stocks) that had reached bubble-like valuation levels?? It's not in the cost of living - utilities, energy, fuel, healthcare or elsewhere like wages,etc.

Deflation is nothing more than a fairy tale invented by Wall Street and Washington to get more government spending and to get dumb investors to buy Treasuries at near zero percent.

Even back in 2002, Ben Bernanke was spinning myths about the dangers of non-existent deflation.


On Sep 09 11:00 AM Michael Clark wrote:

> The Japanese have been trying to re-inflate their economic bubble
> for 20 years -- and couldn't do it. It's not so simple as what the
> Fed wants the Fed gets. The Fed is fighting for inflation. But it
> looks like the Fed is losing this fight.

Sep 09 02:26 PM

[Jim Bradley:]

Tony - you don't consider the drop in housing costs by near 50% a significant factor? Basically the CPI didn't measure the housing cost inflation on the way up, nor did it reflect the drop on the way down. While it's hard to separate the price changes from relative pricing adjustments from monetary effects, there still is a strong argument to be made that the run up and down wasn't properly reflected.


On Sep 09 02:26 PM Tony Daltorio wrote:

> Japan - a very small, closed society is NOT a valid example to compare
> to the US. The actions the Japanese took is nothing like the actions
> the Fed has already taken and WILL take in the future.
>
> Also please tell me where the much-vaunted deflation is except in
> the price of assets (housing, US stocks) that had reached bubble-like
> valuation levels?? It's not in the cost of living - utilities, energy,
> fuel, healthcare or elsewhere like wages,etc.
>
> Deflation is nothing more than a fairy tale invented by Wall Street
> and Washington to get more government spending and to get dumb investors
> to buy Treasuries at near zero percent.
>
> Even back in 2002, Ben Bernanke was spinning myths about the dangers
> of non-existent deflation.

Sep 09 03:16 PM

[Jim Bradley:]

Jeff - Is it your feeling that the distribution of the funds matters? I just don't see the dispersal (yet) to make that case. I think your best argument has to do with the destruction of supply via government increasing the impediments to production while running a loose monetary policy as was done in the late 70s. But is that occurring faster than the effects of the restructuring? I don't think over the next few years that it will.

While looking at health care, oil, food, etc. I do believe those items will continue to show strength. However for your analysis to be correct, those items would have to rise (on a trade-weighted average) more than other items will drop. In my view, households are more and more on a tight budget, so increased expenditures on item X will mean decreased expenditures on item Y unless there is an 'expansive' financing mechanism (such as new debt creation).

Since my expectation is for prolonged restructuring and continued distress, perhaps your view is different.


On Sep 09 02:22 PM JeffDB wrote:

>
> On Sep 09 01:50 PM Jim Bradley wrote:

Sep 09 03:30 PM

[JeffDB:]

On Sep 09 03:30 PM Jim Bradley wrote:

> Jeff - Is it your feeling that the distribution of the funds matters? I just don't see the dispersal (yet) to make that case. >

Yes, I think the distribution most assuredly matters. On the other hand, if I am correct that the undistributed money (sitting in the central bank as reserves on deposit at the Fed) is not counted as a part of the money supply, then that does not offset the fact that M1 has already increased some 19.9% since last year AND that extra money is ALSO on deposit at the Fed.

That extra cash would seem more likely to me to be available to be lent out to new creditors at virtually a moment's notice further increasing the money supply.

I'm of the opinion that if the people regain any confidence and begin to spend some of this extra (currently almost 20% more than we had a year ago with the possibility of expanding beyond that) the velocity will increase and we'll see a jump in inflation.

>I think your best argument has to do with the destruction of supply via government increasing the impediments to production while running a loose monetary policy as was done in the late 70s. But is that occurring faster than the effects of the restructuring? I don't think over the next few years that it will. >

Deleveraging should decrease the money supply as people pay down debts. But the government has been trying to offset by increasing their own spending and pumping a lot more money back into the system. If their figures are accurate, it would seem to me that they have more than offset the decreases due to people and companies cutting back on borrowing and increasing their savings or the money supply would be lower, or at least equivalent to last year.

Deflations in the past have been due to a decrease in the money supply, but we have a fairly significant increase.

It seems to me that the current low inflation is because people and banks are sitting on the money and not spending it. That slowdown in velocity is offsetting the increase in the overall money supply, but if things begin to pick up that should start to improve people's confidence levels and get money moving again. That could have a snowball effect as people start to spend, then prices start to rise a little and people decide to buy NOW rather than wait until prices rise further. I think that is how an inflationary spiral could start.

Were that to happen the Fed could try to drain cash out of the system, but that would entail rising interest rates. If done perfectly they could theoretically get what I think they are shooting for -- a little inflation.

I think they *want* inflation because it would be beneficial for them on a number of fronts. It would help to bail out the banks and creditors for them. Salaries and profits would be rising, at least in nominal terms, and so would housing and commercial real estate prices. That would reduce the number of mortgagors under water with their loans and make those who are a little under water think twice before abandoning an asset that is appreciating in value.

It would also reduce the value in real terms of the national debt. They could pay it back with inflated dollars, and tax revenues would be rising especially in nominal terms as would GDP which would be measured in the newly inflated dollar terms. That would automatically lower the debt as a percentage of GDP so things would look much better under an inflationary scenario.

> While looking at health care, oil, food, etc. I do believe those items will continue to show strength. However for your analysis to be correct, those items would have to rise (on a trade-weighted average) more than other items will drop. In my view, households are more and more on a tight budget, so increased expenditures on item X will mean decreased expenditures on item Y unless there is an 'expansive' financing mechanism (such as new debt creation). >

Well, I think the expanding money supply *is* that expansive financing mechanism. It just hasn't worked it's way through from the banks to the general public yet. All that money the banks have sitting in reserve at the fed are just waiting for the opportunity to be lent out as new debt, expanding the money supply further yet. But for that to happen, the economy needs to expand a little, the public needs to gain more confidence, and the banks need to feel a little more confident so that they can relax their currently much tighter lending standards.

> Since my expectation is for prolonged restructuring and continued distress, perhaps your view is different. >

I wouldn't bet against prolonged restructuring nor continued distress, but if so, I'd still expect some inflation thrown into the mix as well. We've had "stagflation" before with high unemployment concomitant with inflation. There are many examples of that throughout history around the world, especially in some of the developing nations. The German Weimar Republic between WWI & WWII is one classic example.

Sep 09 04:28 PM

[Jim Bradley:]

JeffDB - Perhaps you are right, and while I can agree it's wise to hedge both sides, I don't see you pointing to a mechanism with reliable data that money is being put (or about to be put) in great volume into the economy that isn't kept by or returned to the banking system to stay. What's left is curtailment of supply on essential goods, and I certainly agree with 'non-housing essential goods inflation' but not with 'overall inflation'.

In my view, your case is best supported by monetized government deficits, which would appear to be a one-shot: in other words, it quickly hits banking system where it stays as banks have a rough time finding enough good borrowers to really make a money expansion. Over time, deleveraging is offset by money printing, but so far that's not inflationary.

If you've got a mechanism that you can point to, I might agree ...

On Sep 09 04:28 PM JeffDB wrote:

> On Sep 09 03:30 PM Jim Bradley wrote:

Sep 09 06:54 PM

[Zouk_man:]

I used to think we were in for a bout of hyper inflation, but now I am not so sure. The Fed desperately wants to reinflate this economy, but I now no longer believe they have the resources to do so. It would require more ammunition than they possess.

Secondly, one must be careful to localize inflation and deflation projections, since markets are not homogenous. We will probably experience inflation in imported goods and deflation in domestic goods as the dollar continues to collapse. Of course, oil is mostly imported, so where will that leave us? I have my guess, but what do you think?

Sep 09 08:41 PM