How the banks hope to help small businesses
Credit where it's due. Britain's biggest banks appear to have made a serious effort to respond to the concerns that they are not providing enough financial support to small and medium size businesses.
The report of their Business Finance Taskforce, which will be published later today after bank bosses meet ministers to discuss their proposals, contains recommendations of substance, to improve the flow of credit and capital to the private sector, and also to provide a bit more confidence to smaller businesses that they have a right of reply and appeal if they feel mistreated by their respective lenders.
The proposals fall into three broad categories:
1) Initiatives to improve relationships with customers, which will include the provision of support for a network of business mentors, the establishment of a more independent and robust appeals process for businesses that feel poorly treated, and the creation of a new longer timetable for replacing existing credit;
2) New and improved sources of finance, including the creation of a new Business Growth Fund and help for mid-sized businesses to raise money on syndicated debt markets;
3) The collection of better business-lending data and the publication of clear information on what finance is available.
It's the Business Growth Fund which is the most eye-catching proposal. This will be a brand new institution which aims to make equity investments of between £2m and £10m in businesses with a turnover between £10m and £100m.
The fund is a response to the concern - which feels almost as old as capitalism itself - that the UK lacks appropriate institutions to provide risk capital to smaller (though not micro) businesses.
For as long as I can remember, politicians and business folk have agonised that the UK is at a significant economic disadvantage compared to Germany, because we have no equivalent of Germany's Landesbanken, the banks that provide longer term finance to small and medium size businesses.
And since these are the businesses that generate so much employment and wealth, it is a financing gap that is more urgent than ever to fill in Britain, given the looming squeeze on public expenditure and the expectation that the years of boom for the UK financial services sector are well and truly over.
The banks are pretty ambitious for their Business Growth Fund. They hope it will make something like £1.5bn of investments over a number of years, from a series of regional offices (as well as an HQ).
That can be seen as a serious commitment to help businesses with growth potential, in that those companies that take advantage of the new capital on offer should also be able to lever in additional debt finance.
The fund will take stakes in businesses of at least 10% and will hold them for about five years. The aim is to appoint a chairman by the end of the year and start assessing investments as early as next spring.
Interestingly the leading banks behind the report - HSBC, Barclays, Santander, Lloyds, Standard Chartered, Royal Bank of Scotland - will invite other financial institutions to invest in the fund, alongside them.
As a minister said to me last night, "I think we have had some kind of return for kicking the banks; this new fund looks as though it will play a useful role".
Does it mean that there'll be an easing of pressure on the banks from the Chancellor, George Osborne, and the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, for them to do more to help business?
I don't think so, because there is still a gap between ministers and banks on the nature of the problem as it affects the smallest businesses.
The taskforce's report sticks to the banks' line that they are providing enough credit facilities to small businesses - and that the problem is that unconfident businesses simply don't want to borrow right now, with the economic recovery not yet firmly entrenched.
By contrast, senior ministers believe that businesses are put off from requesting credit by their perception - which may or may not be accurate - that banks will charge them too much.
Against that backdrop, for me, the most striking admission in the report by the banks is that they may yet become seriously constrained in the amount of vital credit they'll be able to provide as demand picks up.
That's because, as you won't need telling, our banks became far too dependent in the boom years on raising finance in asset-backed bond markets which still haven't recovered properly.
As readers of this blog will know, just to maintain their current stock of lending, Britain's banks will have to refinance some £800bn of term funding and liquid assets between now and the end of 2012 - including the need to find not far off £300bn to replace the state-backed finance they received from the Bank of England's Special Liquidity Scheme and the Treasury's Credit Guarantee Scheme.
The taskforce report makes some suggestions about how to change regulations relating to asset-backed securities that they feel would help ease this looming funding squeeze. But there remains a serious risk that we'll soon be hit by Credit Crunch 2.
Perhaps for reasons of pride, the banks are not holding out a begging bowl - the report studiously avoids asking the government for an extension of the loans and guarantees they've received from taxpayers.
But the Treasury is painfully aware that if asset-backed bond markets don't perk up a good deal more in the coming few months, it will have to keep the banks on financial life support for a good deal longer than it would want.
Update 1155: It is important not to get too carried away with excitement about the potential of the banks' new Business Growth Fund.
I calculate that it will be able to provide risk capital to around 250 middling companies over a number of years (based on the banks' assertion that they'll provide £1.5bn of equity finance in individual lumps of between £2m and £10m).
As I've said, that will be seen as a useful contribution to the growth potential of a segment of the economy that has typically found it hard to raise capital. But it won't be transformative.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Just posted this in another thread.
Everyone should read:From Marx to Goldman Sachs: The Fictions of Fictitious Capital by Michael Hudson(http://michael-hudson.com/2010/07/from-marx-to-goldman-sachs-the-fictions-of-fictitious-capital1/)Quote:
"But the pretense that fictitious finance-capital claims can be paid must be dropped at the point where financial managers desert the sinking financial ship. Their last act before the bubble bursts is the time-honored practice of taking the money and running – paying themselves as large bonuses and salaries as corporate treasuries (and public bailouts) allow."Now look at these:$144bn bonuses to Wall Street(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319836/Greed-returns-Wall-Street-Bankers-pay-hit-record-144bn-despite-financial-crisis.html) Sorry it's from the DM - plenty of other sources.1oz Krugerrands at £909.The end game is here.
Complain about this comment
1. £1.5bn is a drop in the ocean. This "growth fund" needs to be investing at least £10bn over 5 years to make a real difference. In any event it's been previously announced that the real idea behind the fund is to ensure companies are properly capitalised so that they represent a minimum risk for lending. It's called having your cake and eating it twice.
2. If the banks don't also fund a real venture fund then there will be a further fall in the company birth rate and we can't afford that.Complain about this comment
Sounds great, let's see it in action however before we can pass judgement.
It's worth remembering that 98% of businesses are SMEs and employ ~60%% of the workforce. However 95% of the businesses in the UK employ less than 5 people, and are classsed as micro businesses. There isn't much assistance here.We're a micro business, and this month alone I've secured about 30% of my last year's turnover in export sales. However, this leaves me with a cash flow problem, as I can't afford to buy all the bits due to the size of the orders. My bank manager informally says, don't bother applying for a short term loan, because based on last years accounts ( a bad year , remember?) head office won't approve it. This is despite the largest order going to a Hungarian State financed institution ( the others are to France, China and the US).So it's begging bowl out to relatives and friends, who are frankly getting bored of me asking them. Alternatively of course, I could just refuse the orders?So let's see help for all sizes of business; how about putting back bank managers into branches, and giving them lending discression?Complain about this comment
RP wrote:
"It's the Business Growth Fund which is the most eye-catching proposal. This will be a brand new institution which aims to make equity investments in businesses with a turnover between £10m and £100m."£10m - £100m turnover?? What a laugh!! How to direct money to the already rich more like...We need equity investments in start-ups and micro businesses, not already bloated mega-corps.Complain about this comment
On the other hand there is the PwC report that predicts a million private and public sector jobs lost over the next four years. It will be working capital and cash flow relief that SME's will be tapping the banks up for not new investment.
Why do the banks need to take a 10% stake in businesses rather than just provide a loan on fair commercial terms. They are not exactly rushing into this - when is next spring May 2011. This is window dressing and a subtle part of pressurising the government for more support and less being on their backs.
Complain about this comment
Speaking as the Financial Manager of a company on the precipice of £10m annual turnover I can assure you that borrowing is still a very tough process and that without property equity in the UK as security, the banks just aren't interested.
It's pretty difficult to find enough equity when property prices are so low and so the vicious circle continues. It's just a microcosm of the whole economy and despite all these soundbites and promises I'm very pessimistic.Complain about this comment
Meanwhile, let's wait and see how many billions are taken out of the demand side of the equation. A propos of which, can anyone tell me whether the oft quoted figure of £82 billion cuts (or so) is an annual figure or a cumulative figure over the period to 2014?ThanksIt would be churlish not to see an extra £1.5 billion investment as a "good thing". But if they're buying equity it's hardly generous.
Complain about this comment
All fine words, but I'll believe it when I see it. My small business has just seen its £5k overdraft withdrawn by Lloyds with no warning, and after assurances that it would be renewed. Compounding the problem is that fact that it's almost impossible to talk to someone who knows what's going on. Phone calls are referred to our account manager, who is perpetually unavailable. Is there actually any business bank with good customer service? I'd really love to know.
Complain about this comment
The business growth fund is a good idea but the messages are still mixed.
On the one hand the banks say that nobody wants to borrow and on the other companies say that no one is willing to lend.The banks need to raise capital which companies think precludes them from offering lower cost finance but the banks need to lend at a realistic prices which includes the possibility of the loans not being repaid which is perceived to be higher.Confidence in the other side is low and so business between the two is also low.Credit Crunch II (the return) will occur simply because no-one trusts the financial system anymore, the risks in the system seem to outweigh the benefits and this looks like a self-tightening loop.If it has taken 3 years from Crunch to Crunch II then it will only take 1.5 years until Crunch III as everyone knows about diminishing returns on sequels.Hopefully by the time Crunch IV comes around we will have weaned ourselves off the current financial franchise and it will be irrelevant.The business growth fund is probably too little too late, the tide is already on its way out and it does seem to be going out a bit further than usual.
Complain about this comment
This is an interesting proposition. I understand that credit drives the economy, that the banks have addressed the widespread conception that smaller businesses have felt harshly treated by banks and this is a potential growth area for the UK eonomy.
What I am supsicious of is the way eevrthing depends on the vagaries of bond markets (which like other markets do not behave rationally when left to their own devices.) Too much of it seems psychological - we hear constantly about how the markets "feel" about the outlook for the economy and how this effects whether we move forward or backward with regards to economic growth.
This all sounds a little too familiar and I fail to see how yet more credit providing the basis for economic growth is actually a stable or dependable model. The government appears to be passing decisions on what shape the economy will take to institutions which have far from a spotless record when it comes to looking at the bigger picture (i.e. fueling the housing bubble).
The German economy seems to be more strategic. They are willing to look at the overall picture. Which business sectors would these new banking organisations be willing to back? Will the government have any influence over the decisions they make?
Complain about this comment
> there remains a serious risk that we'll soon be hit by Credit
We have made painfully little progress making those banks> Crunch 2 ... the Treasury is painfully aware that if asset-backed
> bond markets don't perk up a good deal more in the coming
> few months, it will have to keep the banks on financial
> life support for a good deal longer than it would want.
too small to give a hoot about. They are still a threat, even
now.When will we start to disempower these spooky, bloated organizations?
They need to be true servants of the people, which requires a total
culture change.
Complain about this comment
Surprise , surprise the banks still need our help .
The banks have completely out witted the government/ regulators1. The banks have passed over the most toxic loans to the general public.2. Any bad loans the banks have now been off set against taxable income.
3. Banking has never been so profitable with mortgage margins at 2% -3% (£3000 a year for every £100,000 mortgage to move money from one pot to another ??)
4. Bank bonuses back to where they were pre crunch.The only way out of this is get rid of them in all but basic banking requirements, it may cost 5% GDP but in the long run it will be the best thing for the average joe public, the politicians are simply not up to the task of managing these spivs...
Complain about this comment
I have said it before - Banks are the Only business.
Here we see them realising that their property companies. The ones that ended up being owned, lock stock, by the Banks. Crest Nicholson and McCarthy Stone have a worthless business model unless the property market goes up. Inflates.What better way to do this than feed some money into the lower echelons?
They know that any money created will get back to them via their companies.And they look good in the process.
Clever bankers.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Robert,
"But there remains a serious risk that we'll soon be hit by Credit Crunch 2."Is credit crunch 1 over? When did that happen?Complain about this comment
"Credit where it's due. Britain's biggest banks appear to have made a serious effort to respond to the concerns that they are not providing enough financial support to small and medium size businesses."
Robert - have you been reading the PR releases from banks again?Do I have to tell you again - the banks will say anything to get out of their responsibilities - I mean we own this one and it still thinks it's OK to 'rip off customers' with worthless PPI.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/incomeprotection/8059528/Lloyds-snubs-FSA-as-it-puts-PPI-claims-on-hold.html"The proposals fall into three broad categories:"1) Another useless appeals process for small businesses which should help them waste just enough time that they will be bankrupt by the time their appeal is heard.
2) A new collateralised debt instrument
3) More data collection (which can be lost on a train) - and still nowehere near the better method of LOCAL BANK MANAGER WHO KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING!I can't believe you sucker Journalists fall for this everytime. Tell us Robert how many times did the following appear in this report?"Working together"
"Stable lending environment"
"Responsible lender"
"Encouraging Entrepenuerism"
"Stimulating Growth"
"Working hand in hand with.."
"Protecting Capital ratios and regulatory requirements"
etc.If I had a penny for everytime I've seen one of these BS filled reports then I would be running my own bank by now.The FACT of the matter is that BANKS DON'T WANT TO LEND TO SMALL BUSINESSES - for the same reason most people don't want to - we're in a depression and small businesses are most at risk - because larger corporations can weather the storm better and are less likely to be swallowed up by a rival.Banks ARE SCARED TO LEND - which is why they have upped their lending criteria - don't believe me? - look what they did to mortgages...http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-mortgage-approvals.phpThey CLAIM this is because of a lack of demand, but the desire to own a house is just as keen as it was in 2007 - IT'S THE BANKS WHO HAVE CHANGED.It's the same for small businesses - and as the French aptly demonstrated with previous methods of protectionism - you can be fairly inventive when you're trying to prevent the movement of goods or capital without showing that you are.
Extra forms, more scrutiny, a longer lending process - all of which add to the delay in the loan and there are a good number of potential customers who will simply give up - go elsewhere - or literally give up their business. In addition to this the banks can offer all the money they like - if it's offered at a rate far greater than the current savings rate then small businesses will struggle to justify such a loan (no matter how desperate they are)I still can't believe an experienced journalist like you is lapping this cobblers up - believe me, if the banks could lend, they would - their greed would ensure that - you want to concentrate on what they're hiding from us all - a much better story I think.
Complain about this comment
They hope it will make something like £1.5bn of investments over a number of years
There was a time when a figure and statement like that would have been impressive from the banks...............No longer , its a tiny amount , and hardly worth mentioning alongside the amounts tax payers are funding the banks by daily.
Complain about this comment
Without loans and debt the system will grind to a halt in no time at all.
The big difference between the pre and post WW2 periods is the availability of credit/loans for people who want to get ahead.The system can be abused by morons but the overall trend has been an increased standard of living because the vast majority of people are responsible where money is concerned.Complain about this comment
1. At 10:18am on 13 Oct 2010, the_fatcat wrote:
> Now look at these: $144bn bonuses to Wall StreetI know - bankers are crazed with fear and greed. It's going to behard to crush their culture, but we have no choice - they declared war
on Britain and we can't afford more appeasement.It's time to break them up. All of them.
Complain about this comment
I don't think forcing banks to lend to business is a priority. An absolutely solid foundation is. There are lots of companies out there which are a result of the credit boom which has completely distorted our society. The tightening of credit is a natural and good mechanism to return to when you had to really think hard as a businessperson, investor, and customer rather than having cheap money thrust in your face and customers willing to buy anything which even the most naive are starting to realise was completely insane. I am a small business owner who funded my business by saving when everything was being done to discourage saving by inducing the asset bubble to delay the recession we should have had about 10 years ago. When people tell you there are perfectly sound businesses out there that can ONLY succeed if the banks are forced to lend like the last decade they are almost certainly lying. There are other ways - hell, get in touch if you think you have because I'll invest.
Complain about this comment
Our bank want to 'restructure' our finance, however if they do, then they remove our overdraft facility, which is our cashflow saviour at the moment.....we are a micro business, there are 2 of us. If we don't have the overdraft facility, we can't buy the quantity of stockls we have to bring from abroad; if we have no stock we can't sell it obviously, so no money to service their 'restructuring'; £10m seems like a lottery win to us, not a turnover, but as others have said, the larger companies are supported and eventually go bankrupt for millions, whilst the micro businesses with a 10k debt are forced to close - something wrong somewhere I think.
Complain about this comment
Fatcat: a £10m turnover company manufacturing something will almost certainly be employing less than 50 people. That makes it a small company not a bloated mega corp. Even a £20m turnover company will be one typically employing less than 100 people
However, I do agree that the size range for companies needing assistance on finance is wrong. £60-100m turnover companies should not need that help. I am more concerned about companies turning over £1m-10m which have severe difficulties getting finance. It should not be necessary for directors to put their houses on the line to obtain invoice discounting finances, but all too often that is what is being asked for.Complain about this comment
This article reads like a press release from the Business Finance Taskforce. Where is the insightful critique?
It seems it is up to the regulars here to pull it apart.
Complain about this comment
We've heard this slick type of spiel before already. Once bitten twice shy don't ask why.
When Markets are poor bear, the Banks Sales Teams cold-call customers telling them how much they can help if they invest their money with them. 'Good Customer relationships' are another marketing angle for manipulation with hype lip-talk when in reality it is only in Banks self interests to boost up numbers during their down time.It's like Merrill Lynch enticing lucky customers to MBS securities or junk bonds before the market tonks or mortgage brokers dishing out sub-prime loans on industrial levels.
Complain about this comment
Platitudes...
Lending money to businesses that look likely to fail in an harsh economic environment is an idea that is just as flawed as lending to the housing market bubble.In the end, it is our money and wasting it does not make economic sense...Complain about this comment
11. At 10:41am on 13 Oct 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
When King Philip IV of France found himself heavily in debt to the Templars (who ran an early form of banking) from his war with the English, he had them discredited and then burnt at the stake.When will we start to disempower these spooky, bloated organizations?
They need to be true servants of the people, which requires a total
culture change.
-------------------------------------------------------
When will our government learn.
Complain about this comment
@ 10. At 10:39am on 13 Oct 2010, i wrote:
> What I am supsicious of is the way eevrthing depends on the vagaries of> bond markets ... Too much of it seems psychologicalThat's right. It's driven by atavistic bankers, who are half crazed by fear and greed. Look, we now need to put the outmoded practices of 19th century goldsmiths firmly behind us. That means we must engineer and control the money system for ourselves, taking it right out of the hands of those who have failed so abysmally to administer it in a reliable way, i.e. the bankers.
Complain about this comment
@ 18. At 11:01am on 13 Oct 2010, ady wrote:
> The big difference between the pre and post WW2 periods is the> availability of credit/loans for people who want to get ahead.If everybody wants to get "ahead", then nobody can be "ahead" of
anybody else! Greed is the whole problem.
Complain about this comment
Brilliant article provided by the fat_cat confirms my suspicions. Our credit based economy is illusory.
If we don't control banks they will control us and collapse once more. As Peter says, Credit Crunch II.The link provided explains perfectly how a credit based economy disables the consumers ability to keep up with cyclically increased rent and interest charges to the point where the economy periodically overheats beacause there are no consumers left. The Ponzi pyraid of credit upon credit upon credit - or in this case bonds fueling banks who then provide credit to business leads to businesses who cannot make a profit. A similar process is currently occuring at Liverpool football Club. In the end compund interest is so high thats its cumulative manifestion cannot be supported by economic growth - resulting in the collapse of the interlinked global economy. This means that businesses don't invest and grow from profitability and like us all become dependent on banks whose function is to bleed the true economy (Making things) dry resulting in boom and bust economics. In short, the banking sector acts as a gigantic parasite and undermines capitalism itself leading, periodically, to a collapse of the system which results in the further parasitism of requiring governmenst and tax payers to bail them out.
In this light how is it remotely responsible to pass over key decisions on future investment to the very institutions which threaten it most and do most to undermine it? I don't think credit is due to the banks for the simple reason that their self-interest will ultimtely undermine any gains made by real industry. We serve the banks, the banks don't serve us. Like any predator, it becomes a victim of its own success and the 'prey' of real businesses (capital flows of any kind) and individuals run out resulting in a flatlined economy (like Japan). Money being used to 'make' money does not count as real productivity - its just creaming capital of the truly productive sector of the economy until it kills it and in the process kills itself. This is what the banks have done and the upshot is that we have resuscitated them so they can do it again.
In this light why are we handing over key decisions and processes which will aid the mythical "recovery" that the media are constantly droning on about to institutions who will inevitably bleed more and more from the system. The banks control us and credit, by its very nature kills its host. Growth should be based on profit but instead, like premiership football teams, business find that simple profit isn't enough and everyone gets conned into cheating by using borrowed money to steal a lead in a game in which everyone loses eventually.
Complain about this comment
19. At 11:02am on 13 Oct 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
"I know - bankers are crazed with fear and greed. It's going to behard to crush their culture, but we have no choice - they declared war
on Britain and we can't afford more appeasement."...they declared war and now they have a 'taskforce' - time to take the battle to the streets.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Golf Clubs should be doing well in this recession....
TAXing the many to enrich the few....
Bankers and the City are the winners....Everyone else loosers.
And the party continues for the pinstripes.
But will this solve this recession in the UK.??
Meritocracy is no more.
This is the land of the priveledged few.
I'm afraid that I must girn about these pestilences.
Complain about this comment
here is a good example of the banks investing in sound busienss ideas! small busines owners read it and weep-
from rte.ie today - HBOS 'LOST MILLIONS ON US CASINO' - The Guardian reports that Lloyds Banking Group, which is partly owned by the UK taxpayer, has lost more than $500m (£317m) on loans to M Resort Spa Casino in Las Vegas - the second massive financial hit the bank has taken in America in as many months.Complain about this comment
19. At 11:02am on 13 Oct 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:
> Now look at these: $144bn bonuses to Wall Street1. At 10:18am on 13 Oct 2010, the_fatcat wrote:
=================
It now says 91bn INCLUDING SALARIES up 4% on last year.
Has it been changed since you read it?
Complain about this comment
Apologies for just repeating what has been said before, but as AquaLung pionts out the amount touted is neglegible, before even considering how much of it is actually available and sensibly directed.
And as WOTW & bother Jacques and others say, where's the journalism and interrogation? This is just spin and pure cronyism.
Really, really disappointing stuff
Complain about this comment
23. At 11:25am on 13 Oct 2010, Kit Green wrote:
"This article reads like a press release from the Business Finance Taskforce. Where is the insightful critique?It seems it is up to the regulars here to pull it apart."- True - but according to Andrew Marr we're simply 'angry spotty teenagers' - but it seems clear to me we're filling the void left by weak journalists who take their 'stories' from the ticker output from the corporations PR department.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/lukeslewis/100047933/andrew-marr-thinks-bloggers-are-anti-social-geeks-the-reality-is-quite-the-opposite/We have a classic example here where the 'story' is regurgitated PR nonsense about lending - but the reality is (as many SME owners have testified on here) that banks are withdrawing overdrafts or making the rate so painful it's not viable.
I don't rely on the testimony here either - every SME owner I have met in the last 3 years has had the same complaint - at the time when they're struggling - the banks pulled the rug (what do they say about banks only lending umbrellas when it's fine weather?)Well fellow 'citizen journalists' - if the moderators actually let this through and stop protecting snobby journalists we shall see who is better at analysis - because it seems to me more people knew the collapse was coming outside of the world of journalism - than those within it.The truth is the 'recovery plan' is to simply provide enough BS to convince everyone to start spending money they don't have (again) - but I think the British consumer is a little more sensible than that - and the only people who will fall for it are already bankrupts in waiting. It's our job to ensure that this doesn't happen because it will only store up an even greater problem in the future.
Complain about this comment
" But there remains a serious risk that we'll soon be hit by Credit Crunch 2."
"But the Treasury is painfully aware that if asset-backed bond markets don't perk up a good deal more in the coming few months, it will have to keep the banks on financial life support for a good deal longer than it would want."I would say its a certainty.
How many bailouts does it take before the masses realise we are being taken for a ride by bankers who have bankrupted the country. It must be brought to an end, and investors should suffer the losses not the public sector services, and those who did not do any wrong.
Complain about this comment
I do genuinely hope that something can be done to help smaller businesses.
On the other hand the amount being taken out of the economy by the attack on the public sector is likely to overwhelm any of this. Just today we have ....PWC - 1 million people, 1/2 in the private sector, to lose their jobs directly from the cutsNationwide - consumer confidence downUnemployment - 3 months to August continue downward trend, September claimant figure is UPEven if the smaller businesses are not funded directly by goverment contracts, I would still not fancy their prospects for growth when the economy is being pushed back into recession.Complain about this comment
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.