[drboom]

[quote=matt-waiting]My impression is that asking for a rebate from a good buyer’s agent may be the best way to go, although the good Dr. has shown that a) a buyer’s agent provides little value for a buyer with half a brain … [/quote]

I should repeat that representation during the sale process had definite value for me. It might have been cheaper to hire a lawyer for the services my agent performed, even accounting for the rebate. But I don’t know if the lawyer I ended up with would have been on the deal like a rabid (and very organized) wolverine like my agent was.

Ask for 1.5% pretax (you’ll get a 1099). Net should be around 1% depending on your tax bracket.

YMMV, but it worked well for me. It’s not about beating the system, it’s about not paying for things I actively don’t want. I won’t be scared or bullied into wanting them, either.

[drboom]

[quote=matt-waiting]My impression is that asking for a rebate from a good buyer’s agent may be the best way to go, although the good Dr. has shown that a) a buyer’s agent provides little value for a buyer with half a brain … [/quote]

I should repeat that representation during the sale process had definite value for me. It might have been cheaper to hire a lawyer for the services my agent performed, even accounting for the rebate. But I don’t know if the lawyer I ended up with would have been on the deal like a rabid (and very organized) wolverine like my agent was.

Ask for 1.5% pretax (you’ll get a 1099). Net should be around 1% depending on your tax bracket.

YMMV, but it worked well for me. It’s not about beating the system, it’s about not paying for things I actively don’t want. I won’t be scared or bullied into wanting them, either.

[drboom]

[quote=njtosd][quote=drboom]

. . . In the legal field, lawyers are granted the power to vet their own membership by the state. That’s a monopoly. Same thing goes for the practice of medicine.

. . .
[/quote]

I guess I see your reasoning, but would that make the practice of driving a monopoly, too? Since the state requires that drivers pass tests administered by other drivers . . . It’s all a matter of how you define something, I suppose. IMHO, a monopoly eliminates competition and allows the monopolizing entity to decide the price of the monopolized goods or services. There is a large variation in the fees of the professional services that you mention here, so I would disagree with the breadth of your definition.[/quote]

The important difference is that the state is assumed to be a neutral actor. Driver’s licenses are available to all who apply and meet the same standards. The state’s motivations in granting licenses or denying them have nothing to do with, say, keeping truckers’ wages from getting too competitive.

A bar association is a club of professionals and managed by its own members. The state does appoint a few directors to the bar’s board in California, but the state doesn’t have much more than a consultative role. Besides, who’s going to sue the bar association? It gets worse when the bar’s lobbying arm starts exerting itself on the legislature … which is full of members of the bar.

A monopoly’s key characteristic is the restraint of trade. Natural consequences of this restraint are increased prices, reduced efficiency, reduced choice, and (frequently) reduced quality of goods and services. Not all of those symptoms must be present for there to be a monopoly, but even statutory monopolies like SDG&E, Major League Baseball, and Cox Cable would surely put out a cheaper product more efficiently if they faced real competition. Competition was judged impractical in those cases, so the government compromised.

Getting back to the RE industry, I think all the defects named above plague the real estate market.

[drboom]

[quote=njtosd][quote=drboom]

. . . In the legal field, lawyers are granted the power to vet their own membership by the state. That’s a monopoly. Same thing goes for the practice of medicine.

. . .
[/quote]

I guess I see your reasoning, but would that make the practice of driving a monopoly, too? Since the state requires that drivers pass tests administered by other drivers . . . It’s all a matter of how you define something, I suppose. IMHO, a monopoly eliminates competition and allows the monopolizing entity to decide the price of the monopolized goods or services. There is a large variation in the fees of the professional services that you mention here, so I would disagree with the breadth of your definition.[/quote]

The important difference is that the state is assumed to be a neutral actor. Driver’s licenses are available to all who apply and meet the same standards. The state’s motivations in granting licenses or denying them have nothing to do with, say, keeping truckers’ wages from getting too competitive.

A bar association is a club of professionals and managed by its own members. The state does appoint a few directors to the bar’s board in California, but the state doesn’t have much more than a consultative role. Besides, who’s going to sue the bar association? It gets worse when the bar’s lobbying arm starts exerting itself on the legislature … which is full of members of the bar.

A monopoly’s key characteristic is the restraint of trade. Natural consequences of this restraint are increased prices, reduced efficiency, reduced choice, and (frequently) reduced quality of goods and services. Not all of those symptoms must be present for there to be a monopoly, but even statutory monopolies like SDG&E, Major League Baseball, and Cox Cable would surely put out a cheaper product more efficiently if they faced real competition. Competition was judged impractical in those cases, so the government compromised.

Getting back to the RE industry, I think all the defects named above plague the real estate market.

[drboom]

[quote=njtosd][quote=drboom]

. . . In the legal field, lawyers are granted the power to vet their own membership by the state. That’s a monopoly. Same thing goes for the practice of medicine.

. . .
[/quote]

I guess I see your reasoning, but would that make the practice of driving a monopoly, too? Since the state requires that drivers pass tests administered by other drivers . . . It’s all a matter of how you define something, I suppose. IMHO, a monopoly eliminates competition and allows the monopolizing entity to decide the price of the monopolized goods or services. There is a large variation in the fees of the professional services that you mention here, so I would disagree with the breadth of your definition.[/quote]

The important difference is that the state is assumed to be a neutral actor. Driver’s licenses are available to all who apply and meet the same standards. The state’s motivations in granting licenses or denying them have nothing to do with, say, keeping truckers’ wages from getting too competitive.

A bar association is a club of professionals and managed by its own members. The state does appoint a few directors to the bar’s board in California, but the state doesn’t have much more than a consultative role. Besides, who’s going to sue the bar association? It gets worse when the bar’s lobbying arm starts exerting itself on the legislature … which is full of members of the bar.

A monopoly’s key characteristic is the restraint of trade. Natural consequences of this restraint are increased prices, reduced efficiency, reduced choice, and (frequently) reduced quality of goods and services. Not all of those symptoms must be present for there to be a monopoly, but even statutory monopolies like SDG&E, Major League Baseball, and Cox Cable would surely put out a cheaper product more efficiently if they faced real competition. Competition was judged impractical in those cases, so the government compromised.

Getting back to the RE industry, I think all the defects named above plague the real estate market.

[drboom]

[quote=njtosd][quote=drboom]

. . . In the legal field, lawyers are granted the power to vet their own membership by the state. That’s a monopoly. Same thing goes for the practice of medicine.

. . .
[/quote]

I guess I see your reasoning, but would that make the practice of driving a monopoly, too? Since the state requires that drivers pass tests administered by other drivers . . . It’s all a matter of how you define something, I suppose. IMHO, a monopoly eliminates competition and allows the monopolizing entity to decide the price of the monopolized goods or services. There is a large variation in the fees of the professional services that you mention here, so I would disagree with the breadth of your definition.[/quote]

The important difference is that the state is assumed to be a neutral actor. Driver’s licenses are available to all who apply and meet the same standards. The state’s motivations in granting licenses or denying them have nothing to do with, say, keeping truckers’ wages from getting too competitive.

A bar association is a club of professionals and managed by its own members. The state does appoint a few directors to the bar’s board in California, but the state doesn’t have much more than a consultative role. Besides, who’s going to sue the bar association? It gets worse when the bar’s lobbying arm starts exerting itself on the legislature … which is full of members of the bar.

A monopoly’s key characteristic is the restraint of trade. Natural consequences of this restraint are increased prices, reduced efficiency, reduced choice, and (frequently) reduced quality of goods and services. Not all of those symptoms must be present for there to be a monopoly, but even statutory monopolies like SDG&E, Major League Baseball, and Cox Cable would surely put out a cheaper product more efficiently if they faced real competition. Competition was judged impractical in those cases, so the government compromised.

Getting back to the RE industry, I think all the defects named above plague the real estate market.

[drboom]

[quote=njtosd][quote=drboom]

. . . In the legal field, lawyers are granted the power to vet their own membership by the state. That’s a monopoly. Same thing goes for the practice of medicine.

. . .
[/quote]

I guess I see your reasoning, but would that make the practice of driving a monopoly, too? Since the state requires that drivers pass tests administered by other drivers . . . It’s all a matter of how you define something, I suppose. IMHO, a monopoly eliminates competition and allows the monopolizing entity to decide the price of the monopolized goods or services. There is a large variation in the fees of the professional services that you mention here, so I would disagree with the breadth of your definition.[/quote]

The important difference is that the state is assumed to be a neutral actor. Driver’s licenses are available to all who apply and meet the same standards. The state’s motivations in granting licenses or denying them have nothing to do with, say, keeping truckers’ wages from getting too competitive.

A bar association is a club of professionals and managed by its own members. The state does appoint a few directors to the bar’s board in California, but the state doesn’t have much more than a consultative role. Besides, who’s going to sue the bar association? It gets worse when the bar’s lobbying arm starts exerting itself on the legislature … which is full of members of the bar.

A monopoly’s key characteristic is the restraint of trade. Natural consequences of this restraint are increased prices, reduced efficiency, reduced choice, and (frequently) reduced quality of goods and services. Not all of those symptoms must be present for there to be a monopoly, but even statutory monopolies like SDG&E, Major League Baseball, and Cox Cable would surely put out a cheaper product more efficiently if they faced real competition. Competition was judged impractical in those cases, so the government compromised.

Getting back to the RE industry, I think all the defects named above plague the real estate market.

[drboom]

OK, we’ll try one more time. I’m about to repeatedly disagree with you on some things. Can you play nice?

[quote=urbanrealtor]Vetting your own membership does not a monopoly make.[/quote]

You left out the crucial “by the state” part of what I wrote. The ABA disagrees with you when it comes to lawyers, by the way, though you will have to dig around to find the word “monopoly”. It’s kind of a dirty word, and they like to promote the idea that they are a voluntary association.

[quote]Every skilled profession requires peer-review admission to be legitimate.[/quote]

Many, yes, but not all. My wife is a teacher, and her union loves anything that creates barriers to entry because it gives them more leverage. Certificates out the wazoo but no peer review in the same sense as professional engineers, doctors, and lawyers require. CPAs are also licensed directly by the state in California AFAIK, though there is a new peer review requirement being phased in.

[quote]I don’t see anything that suggests monopolies in any of the examples you have given.[/quote]

Really? I thought this was common knowledge, but I have lawyer friends.

Not all states require membership in their state bar to practice law, but in other states the bar association has a monopoly: membership is required. California has been that way since the 1920s.

The bar sets their own standards, etc., and there’s nowhere else to go but to their members if you need legal services. That’s a monopoly any way you slice it. There have been complaints about this within the legal community because not all their members like what the bar does to them or on their behalf.

[quote]I am not sure I can think of a who would be better for reviewing…say doctors.[/quote]

Of course, but the utility of the system depends on whether they are being honest gatekeepers or just erecting barriers to entry for their members’ enrichment. I trust the medical profession more than some others on that score.

[quote]However, I am not aware of it ever being established (or even imputed outside blogs) that the NAR was a functioning Monopoly. The fact that competition exists means that if the NAR were a single business (Its not. Its a trade organization.) it would have an arguable hegemony but not a monopoly.[/quote]

The NAR settled in 2008 rather than go to trial and have the MLS adjudicated a monopoly due to limitations imposed on IDX MLS services by the NAR. A court loss would have been catastrophic. See the complaint for more–it’s a little more complex than that.

Specifically, the feds brought an action under 15 U.S.C. Section 1, which is the red meat part of the Sherman Antitrust Act. A violation is a felony offense and carries a $1 million fine.

So no, the NAR was never held up and called a monopoly in court. But the NAR would never have caved if they thought they had a decent chance of proving the MLS wasn’t a monopoly. It quacks too much, and it waddles …

The USDOJ site has a lot of info on what they’re up to:

USDOJ Antitrust Division: Competition and Real Estate

For a good laugh, here’s how the NAR portrays the 2008 settlement to its members on realtor.org:

[quote]NAR and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a favorable settlement, concluding a two-year DOJ investigation (followed by two and a half years of litigation) regarding NAR’s multiple listing policy as it pertained to the display of listings from the MLS on brokers’ virtual office Web sites, or VOWs.[/quote]

I love the “favorable settlement” spin. There’s no way opening access to the MLS is favorable to the NAR except by comparison to a felony conviction and divestiture of the system. They were made an offer they couldn’t refuse.

[drboom]

OK, we’ll try one more time. I’m about to repeatedly disagree with you on some things. Can you play nice?

[quote=urbanrealtor]Vetting your own membership does not a monopoly make.[/quote]

You left out the crucial “by the state” part of what I wrote. The ABA disagrees with you when it comes to lawyers, by the way, though you will have to dig around to find the word “monopoly”. It’s kind of a dirty word, and they like to promote the idea that they are a voluntary association.

[quote]Every skilled profession requires peer-review admission to be legitimate.[/quote]

Many, yes, but not all. My wife is a teacher, and her union loves anything that creates barriers to entry because it gives them more leverage. Certificates out the wazoo but no peer review in the same sense as professional engineers, doctors, and lawyers require. CPAs are also licensed directly by the state in California AFAIK, though there is a new peer review requirement being phased in.

[quote]I don’t see anything that suggests monopolies in any of the examples you have given.[/quote]

Really? I thought this was common knowledge, but I have lawyer friends.

Not all states require membership in their state bar to practice law, but in other states the bar association has a monopoly: membership is required. California has been that way since the 1920s.

The bar sets their own standards, etc., and there’s nowhere else to go but to their members if you need legal services. That’s a monopoly any way you slice it. There have been complaints about this within the legal community because not all their members like what the bar does to them or on their behalf.

[quote]I am not sure I can think of a who would be better for reviewing…say doctors.[/quote]

Of course, but the utility of the system depends on whether they are being honest gatekeepers or just erecting barriers to entry for their members’ enrichment. I trust the medical profession more than some others on that score.

[quote]However, I am not aware of it ever being established (or even imputed outside blogs) that the NAR was a functioning Monopoly. The fact that competition exists means that if the NAR were a single business (Its not. Its a trade organization.) it would have an arguable hegemony but not a monopoly.[/quote]

The NAR settled in 2008 rather than go to trial and have the MLS adjudicated a monopoly due to limitations imposed on IDX MLS services by the NAR. A court loss would have been catastrophic. See the complaint for more–it’s a little more complex than that.

Specifically, the feds brought an action under 15 U.S.C. Section 1, which is the red meat part of the Sherman Antitrust Act. A violation is a felony offense and carries a $1 million fine.

So no, the NAR was never held up and called a monopoly in court. But the NAR would never have caved if they thought they had a decent chance of proving the MLS wasn’t a monopoly. It quacks too much, and it waddles …

The USDOJ site has a lot of info on what they’re up to:

USDOJ Antitrust Division: Competition and Real Estate

For a good laugh, here’s how the NAR portrays the 2008 settlement to its members on realtor.org:

[quote]NAR and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a favorable settlement, concluding a two-year DOJ investigation (followed by two and a half years of litigation) regarding NAR’s multiple listing policy as it pertained to the display of listings from the MLS on brokers’ virtual office Web sites, or VOWs.[/quote]

I love the “favorable settlement” spin. There’s no way opening access to the MLS is favorable to the NAR except by comparison to a felony conviction and divestiture of the system. They were made an offer they couldn’t refuse.

[drboom]

OK, we’ll try one more time. I’m about to repeatedly disagree with you on some things. Can you play nice?

[quote=urbanrealtor]Vetting your own membership does not a monopoly make.[/quote]

You left out the crucial “by the state” part of what I wrote. The ABA disagrees with you when it comes to lawyers, by the way, though you will have to dig around to find the word “monopoly”. It’s kind of a dirty word, and they like to promote the idea that they are a voluntary association.

[quote]Every skilled profession requires peer-review admission to be legitimate.[/quote]

Many, yes, but not all. My wife is a teacher, and her union loves anything that creates barriers to entry because it gives them more leverage. Certificates out the wazoo but no peer review in the same sense as professional engineers, doctors, and lawyers require. CPAs are also licensed directly by the state in California AFAIK, though there is a new peer review requirement being phased in.

[quote]I don’t see anything that suggests monopolies in any of the examples you have given.[/quote]

Really? I thought this was common knowledge, but I have lawyer friends.

Not all states require membership in their state bar to practice law, but in other states the bar association has a monopoly: membership is required. California has been that way since the 1920s.

The bar sets their own standards, etc., and there’s nowhere else to go but to their members if you need legal services. That’s a monopoly any way you slice it. There have been complaints about this within the legal community because not all their members like what the bar does to them or on their behalf.

[quote]I am not sure I can think of a who would be better for reviewing…say doctors.[/quote]

Of course, but the utility of the system depends on whether they are being honest gatekeepers or just erecting barriers to entry for their members’ enrichment. I trust the medical profession more than some others on that score.

[quote]However, I am not aware of it ever being established (or even imputed outside blogs) that the NAR was a functioning Monopoly. The fact that competition exists means that if the NAR were a single business (Its not. Its a trade organization.) it would have an arguable hegemony but not a monopoly.[/quote]

The NAR settled in 2008 rather than go to trial and have the MLS adjudicated a monopoly due to limitations imposed on IDX MLS services by the NAR. A court loss would have been catastrophic. See the complaint for more–it’s a little more complex than that.

Specifically, the feds brought an action under 15 U.S.C. Section 1, which is the red meat part of the Sherman Antitrust Act. A violation is a felony offense and carries a $1 million fine.

So no, the NAR was never held up and called a monopoly in court. But the NAR would never have caved if they thought they had a decent chance of proving the MLS wasn’t a monopoly. It quacks too much, and it waddles …

The USDOJ site has a lot of info on what they’re up to:

USDOJ Antitrust Division: Competition and Real Estate

For a good laugh, here’s how the NAR portrays the 2008 settlement to its members on realtor.org:

[quote]NAR and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a favorable settlement, concluding a two-year DOJ investigation (followed by two and a half years of litigation) regarding NAR’s multiple listing policy as it pertained to the display of listings from the MLS on brokers’ virtual office Web sites, or VOWs.[/quote]

I love the “favorable settlement” spin. There’s no way opening access to the MLS is favorable to the NAR except by comparison to a felony conviction and divestiture of the system. They were made an offer they couldn’t refuse.

[drboom]

OK, we’ll try one more time. I’m about to repeatedly disagree with you on some things. Can you play nice?

[quote=urbanrealtor]Vetting your own membership does not a monopoly make.[/quote]

You left out the crucial “by the state” part of what I wrote. The ABA disagrees with you when it comes to lawyers, by the way, though you will have to dig around to find the word “monopoly”. It’s kind of a dirty word, and they like to promote the idea that they are a voluntary association.

[quote]Every skilled profession requires peer-review admission to be legitimate.[/quote]

Many, yes, but not all. My wife is a teacher, and her union loves anything that creates barriers to entry because it gives them more leverage. Certificates out the wazoo but no peer review in the same sense as professional engineers, doctors, and lawyers require. CPAs are also licensed directly by the state in California AFAIK, though there is a new peer review requirement being phased in.

[quote]I don’t see anything that suggests monopolies in any of the examples you have given.[/quote]

Really? I thought this was common knowledge, but I have lawyer friends.

Not all states require membership in their state bar to practice law, but in other states the bar association has a monopoly: membership is required. California has been that way since the 1920s.

The bar sets their own standards, etc., and there’s nowhere else to go but to their members if you need legal services. That’s a monopoly any way you slice it. There have been complaints about this within the legal community because not all their members like what the bar does to them or on their behalf.

[quote]I am not sure I can think of a who would be better for reviewing…say doctors.[/quote]

Of course, but the utility of the system depends on whether they are being honest gatekeepers or just erecting barriers to entry for their members’ enrichment. I trust the medical profession more than some others on that score.

[quote]However, I am not aware of it ever being established (or even imputed outside blogs) that the NAR was a functioning Monopoly. The fact that competition exists means that if the NAR were a single business (Its not. Its a trade organization.) it would have an arguable hegemony but not a monopoly.[/quote]

The NAR settled in 2008 rather than go to trial and have the MLS adjudicated a monopoly due to limitations imposed on IDX MLS services by the NAR. A court loss would have been catastrophic. See the complaint for more–it’s a little more complex than that.

Specifically, the feds brought an action under 15 U.S.C. Section 1, which is the red meat part of the Sherman Antitrust Act. A violation is a felony offense and carries a $1 million fine.

So no, the NAR was never held up and called a monopoly in court. But the NAR would never have caved if they thought they had a decent chance of proving the MLS wasn’t a monopoly. It quacks too much, and it waddles …

The USDOJ site has a lot of info on what they’re up to:

USDOJ Antitrust Division: Competition and Real Estate

For a good laugh, here’s how the NAR portrays the 2008 settlement to its members on realtor.org:

[quote]NAR and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a favorable settlement, concluding a two-year DOJ investigation (followed by two and a half years of litigation) regarding NAR’s multiple listing policy as it pertained to the display of listings from the MLS on brokers’ virtual office Web sites, or VOWs.[/quote]

I love the “favorable settlement” spin. There’s no way opening access to the MLS is favorable to the NAR except by comparison to a felony conviction and divestiture of the system. They were made an offer they couldn’t refuse.

[drboom]

OK, we’ll try one more time. I’m about to repeatedly disagree with you on some things. Can you play nice?

[quote=urbanrealtor]Vetting your own membership does not a monopoly make.[/quote]

You left out the crucial “by the state” part of what I wrote. The ABA disagrees with you when it comes to lawyers, by the way, though you will have to dig around to find the word “monopoly”. It’s kind of a dirty word, and they like to promote the idea that they are a voluntary association.

[quote]Every skilled profession requires peer-review admission to be legitimate.[/quote]

Many, yes, but not all. My wife is a teacher, and her union loves anything that creates barriers to entry because it gives them more leverage. Certificates out the wazoo but no peer review in the same sense as professional engineers, doctors, and lawyers require. CPAs are also licensed directly by the state in California AFAIK, though there is a new peer review requirement being phased in.

[quote]I don’t see anything that suggests monopolies in any of the examples you have given.[/quote]

Really? I thought this was common knowledge, but I have lawyer friends.

Not all states require membership in their state bar to practice law, but in other states the bar association has a monopoly: membership is required. California has been that way since the 1920s.

The bar sets their own standards, etc., and there’s nowhere else to go but to their members if you need legal services. That’s a monopoly any way you slice it. There have been complaints about this within the legal community because not all their members like what the bar does to them or on their behalf.

[quote]I am not sure I can think of a who would be better for reviewing…say doctors.[/quote]

Of course, but the utility of the system depends on whether they are being honest gatekeepers or just erecting barriers to entry for their members’ enrichment. I trust the medical profession more than some others on that score.

[quote]However, I am not aware of it ever being established (or even imputed outside blogs) that the NAR was a functioning Monopoly. The fact that competition exists means that if the NAR were a single business (Its not. Its a trade organization.) it would have an arguable hegemony but not a monopoly.[/quote]

The NAR settled in 2008 rather than go to trial and have the MLS adjudicated a monopoly due to limitations imposed on IDX MLS services by the NAR. A court loss would have been catastrophic. See the complaint for more–it’s a little more complex than that.

Specifically, the feds brought an action under 15 U.S.C. Section 1, which is the red meat part of the Sherman Antitrust Act. A violation is a felony offense and carries a $1 million fine.

So no, the NAR was never held up and called a monopoly in court. But the NAR would never have caved if they thought they had a decent chance of proving the MLS wasn’t a monopoly. It quacks too much, and it waddles …

The USDOJ site has a lot of info on what they’re up to:

USDOJ Antitrust Division: Competition and Real Estate

For a good laugh, here’s how the NAR portrays the 2008 settlement to its members on realtor.org:

[quote]NAR and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a favorable settlement, concluding a two-year DOJ investigation (followed by two and a half years of litigation) regarding NAR’s multiple listing policy as it pertained to the display of listings from the MLS on brokers’ virtual office Web sites, or VOWs.[/quote]

I love the “favorable settlement” spin. There’s no way opening access to the MLS is favorable to the NAR except by comparison to a felony conviction and divestiture of the system. They were made an offer they couldn’t refuse.

[drboom]

[quote=urbanrealtor]And I will bet 10 bucks there is nothing but more nuance in your next post.[/quote]

No, we’re done here.

You’re not the first blowhard who got carried away after a few too many drinks and soiled their professional reputation in a forum.

[drboom]

[quote=urbanrealtor]And I will bet 10 bucks there is nothing but more nuance in your next post.[/quote]

No, we’re done here.

You’re not the first blowhard who got carried away after a few too many drinks and soiled their professional reputation in a forum.

[drboom]

[quote=urbanrealtor]And I will bet 10 bucks there is nothing but more nuance in your next post.[/quote]

No, we’re done here.

You’re not the first blowhard who got carried away after a few too many drinks and soiled their professional reputation in a forum.

[Author]

Posts