GTP - Great Southern Plantations
- Thread starter Rafa
- Start date
Hi Jackob..
Years ago a Queensland company tried to con me into buying overpriced property. They showed me a valuation form that indicated prices were true market value.
To that extent, the marketers buy up a large area and develop it, and the valuer looks at past sales evidence of the area and the similarity of the dwelling to those sold. After a while it kind of became self perpetuating, where the valuations were based on sales evidence of the previous suckers who actually did buy in. the true price a local would have paid would have been $30-40k less
So, as I cast my eye over the GTP financials (again
) I note that in 05 they recognized 15mil of revenue from increase in value of their land assets. In 06, they say "the estimate of real price growth has increased from 1% at 30 June 05 to 2% at 30 Jun 06.
In 06, before encumbrance, they recognized 25mil (30% more than 05). After encumbrance, the revenue turned into a 3 mil expense though, since they have to then discount the fair value because they don't get their lease fees till year 10.
But, this self perpetuating thing starts to take hold. MIS schemes may well be the main competition that drives up the demand for this land. As a result, they get to recognize that value as income cos a valuer will go and look at previous sales evidence in that area and across the sector.
Now prior to the encumbrance rule, think of the EPS gain this would have, especially from now onwards.. Capital raising via equity would become more attractive again because its dilution is offset via the asset values. PE would look awesome.. (One can see how a bubble can quite easily form and maybe it has already?)
The encumbrance therefore is probably annoying the crap out of management since shareholders want to realise value now, rather than in a few years.
So I speculate that they may look to change the deferral arrangement where the rental for the land is paid in year 10. This would result in an immediate EPS improvement. Timbercorp used to have you pay in installments over 4 years so its not unusual.
Even without this, I would expect to see a bigger recognition of revenue this FY from asset value increases, just based around the fact they are paying now paying more than they perhaps should..
If there is indeed a bubble in the valuation of the land, then it could be ugly in a few years, with income writeoffs as well as the huge debt to pay off..
this is going to be an interesting PDS..
Years ago a Queensland company tried to con me into buying overpriced property. They showed me a valuation form that indicated prices were true market value.
To that extent, the marketers buy up a large area and develop it, and the valuer looks at past sales evidence of the area and the similarity of the dwelling to those sold. After a while it kind of became self perpetuating, where the valuations were based on sales evidence of the previous suckers who actually did buy in. the true price a local would have paid would have been $30-40k less
So, as I cast my eye over the GTP financials (again
) I note that in 05 they recognized 15mil of revenue from increase in value of their land assets. In 06, they say "the estimate of real price growth has increased from 1% at 30 June 05 to 2% at 30 Jun 06. In 06, before encumbrance, they recognized 25mil (30% more than 05). After encumbrance, the revenue turned into a 3 mil expense though, since they have to then discount the fair value because they don't get their lease fees till year 10.
But, this self perpetuating thing starts to take hold. MIS schemes may well be the main competition that drives up the demand for this land. As a result, they get to recognize that value as income cos a valuer will go and look at previous sales evidence in that area and across the sector.
Now prior to the encumbrance rule, think of the EPS gain this would have, especially from now onwards.. Capital raising via equity would become more attractive again because its dilution is offset via the asset values. PE would look awesome.. (One can see how a bubble can quite easily form and maybe it has already?)
The encumbrance therefore is probably annoying the crap out of management since shareholders want to realise value now, rather than in a few years.
So I speculate that they may look to change the deferral arrangement where the rental for the land is paid in year 10. This would result in an immediate EPS improvement. Timbercorp used to have you pay in installments over 4 years so its not unusual.
Even without this, I would expect to see a bigger recognition of revenue this FY from asset value increases, just based around the fact they are paying now paying more than they perhaps should..
If there is indeed a bubble in the valuation of the land, then it could be ugly in a few years, with income writeoffs as well as the huge debt to pay off..
this is going to be an interesting PDS..
Hi Pch,
Yes, writing up the value of old lands may help increase profit, but they also have to write down the value of new lands (due to encumbrance) to reduce profit. The reason of why TIM had more writing-ups than writing-downs was that TIM’s lands (mainly woodchip lands) are fast approach self-sufficient by rotation with newly planted lands not much more than 10% (GTP: ~30%).
One thing always amazes me is that GTP always intends to make its profit larger than it should be, and thus pays more tax to the ATO. TIM has a different approach by only getting 2/3 of the total fee from the woodchip growers in the 1st year and having the rest 1/3 in the second year or later. Thus 1/3 of TIM’s revenue (woodchip) is automatically deferred without the fuss GTP is having.
If GTP would defer more revenue from growers’ $9000/ha management fee as land rental charge in the 10 years project life, then this would apparently reduce GTP’s “profit” and “e/s”, and make its share price plunge (but save tax).
Yes, writing up the value of old lands may help increase profit, but they also have to write down the value of new lands (due to encumbrance) to reduce profit. The reason of why TIM had more writing-ups than writing-downs was that TIM’s lands (mainly woodchip lands) are fast approach self-sufficient by rotation with newly planted lands not much more than 10% (GTP: ~30%).
One thing always amazes me is that GTP always intends to make its profit larger than it should be, and thus pays more tax to the ATO. TIM has a different approach by only getting 2/3 of the total fee from the woodchip growers in the 1st year and having the rest 1/3 in the second year or later. Thus 1/3 of TIM’s revenue (woodchip) is automatically deferred without the fuss GTP is having.
If GTP would defer more revenue from growers’ $9000/ha management fee as land rental charge in the 10 years project life, then this would apparently reduce GTP’s “profit” and “e/s”, and make its share price plunge (but save tax).
Since we know they are going to use their remaining cash to buy land then we conclude they will need another $300mil by 08 (give or take a bit depending on recognisiton of asset values and future fee rises..)
I suppose its now time to analyse the cows and olives ;-) I must confess I've not examined them in great detail (ie how many cows can you cram into their properties), but the growth rates going on last 2 years suggest they will comprise some 40%+ of their projects this year..
I suppose its now time to analyse the cows and olives ;-) I must confess I've not examined them in great detail (ie how many cows can you cram into their properties), but the growth rates going on last 2 years suggest they will comprise some 40%+ of their projects this year..
Hi Pch,
The GTP 2006 September Annual Report said (issued 22/12/2006, note 25, page 57),
“On 15 September 2006 the Group (GTP) restructured its existing bank facilities into a three year unsecured facility repayable in 2009. The Group had unsecured corporate lending facilities with various banks of $245,000,000 drawn to $200,000,000 at 30 September 2006.”
My questions are:
1) If GTP really had that wonderful sum of cash of $250M in hand, why would it still have to have the above loan facility of $245m drawn to $200m at 30/9/2006 at all?
2) If GTP really had that wonderful sum of cash of $250M in hand, why not used it to repay that $200m bank loan, and save tens of millions of $$$ a year?
The GTP 2006 September Annual Report said (issued 22/12/2006, note 25, page 57),
“On 15 September 2006 the Group (GTP) restructured its existing bank facilities into a three year unsecured facility repayable in 2009. The Group had unsecured corporate lending facilities with various banks of $245,000,000 drawn to $200,000,000 at 30 September 2006.”
My questions are:
1) If GTP really had that wonderful sum of cash of $250M in hand, why would it still have to have the above loan facility of $245m drawn to $200m at 30/9/2006 at all?
2) If GTP really had that wonderful sum of cash of $250M in hand, why not used it to repay that $200m bank loan, and save tens of millions of $$$ a year?
If the $250M “cash” GTP said to be having couldn’t reduce GTP’s mountainous $600+M debt by $1, then how could it be used to buy one ha land on earth?
If the $250M “cash” GTP said to be having couldn’t reduce GTP’s $600+M debt by $1, then most likely it’s not there at all, or only forged to fool the public?
If the $250M “cash” GTP said to be having couldn’t reduce GTP’s $600+M debt by $1, then most likely it’s not there at all, or only forged to fool the public?
I just checked TIM's last annual report and found that TIM also had $100+M "cash and cash equivalent" sitting in its cash account. Also don't know why these "cash" couldn't be used to repay its debt. But obviously just as GTP's, they simply couldn't.
Anyway, if all these "cash" can't repay debt, then they can't buy land either.
Then in GTP's case, it has to raise more money (be it equity or debt) soon as usual.
Anyway, if all these "cash" can't repay debt, then they can't buy land either.
Then in GTP's case, it has to raise more money (be it equity or debt) soon as usual.
The cash is simply the undrawn debt. This is essentially why I think that GTP's next big capital/debt raising is in 2008 as they are using that cash to buy up land as we speak..
Check out TIM's operating cashflow.. it was negative for the year before investing and then financing costs. Then they received 386mil from borrowings leaving them with the $148mil you mention.
They will use 85% of that in 07 if 06 is anything to go by (assuming operating cashflow breaks even) and then in 08 they will be rattling the tin also..
Check out TIM's operating cashflow.. it was negative for the year before investing and then financing costs. Then they received 386mil from borrowings leaving them with the $148mil you mention.
They will use 85% of that in 07 if 06 is anything to go by (assuming operating cashflow breaks even) and then in 08 they will be rattling the tin also..
Hi Pch,
If you look at the GTP 2006 (July-Sept) annual report, the $247m cash seemed to be real cash in the bank and they were even earning a ~5% pa interest (note 7 of the 2006 Sept Annual Report).
It is indeed mysterious why GTP didn’t use the cash to earn a 10+% pa interest by repaying the debt!
My view is still that if these $247m “cash on hand” couldn’t repay any GTP debt, then most likely they couldn’t buy any $7k/ha land for GTP either. GTP definitely needs at least $150m to buy land before April for last year’s $300m woodchip project.
GTP also needs cash to cover its operating net cash outflow (like TIM?). In the 3 months of July-Sept 2006, the GTP operating net cash flow was running at -$89m! This negative operating cash flow must be a new phenomenon, as in the previous GTP half-year reports the operating cash flow was always positive during Jul-Dec each year.
So where can all the cash from? I won’t believe GTP can maintain its cash flow until 2008. Well, it needs the cash soon!
If you look at the GTP 2006 (July-Sept) annual report, the $247m cash seemed to be real cash in the bank and they were even earning a ~5% pa interest (note 7 of the 2006 Sept Annual Report).
It is indeed mysterious why GTP didn’t use the cash to earn a 10+% pa interest by repaying the debt!
My view is still that if these $247m “cash on hand” couldn’t repay any GTP debt, then most likely they couldn’t buy any $7k/ha land for GTP either. GTP definitely needs at least $150m to buy land before April for last year’s $300m woodchip project.
GTP also needs cash to cover its operating net cash outflow (like TIM?). In the 3 months of July-Sept 2006, the GTP operating net cash flow was running at -$89m! This negative operating cash flow must be a new phenomenon, as in the previous GTP half-year reports the operating cash flow was always positive during Jul-Dec each year.
So where can all the cash from? I won’t believe GTP can maintain its cash flow until 2008. Well, it needs the cash soon!
*pch digs out reports again* (its looking worn
05/06 started with 118mil "cash"
add 244mil on operating income for the year
subtract 361mil for buying lots of things (half of that land)
add to that Trees money 124mil
add to that 204mil from "receipts from borrowing"
so after costs of issuing/obtaining that debt, net cashflow from financing is 284mil for 05/06.
Thus net increase in cash held of 168mil
add to the 118 at the start of the year and we have 286mil which is on the balance sheet.
then we have the Sept quarter. "given the nature of the groups seasonal operations, in which a majority of revenue is not recognized until the latter half of the financial year, but with a large amount of agricultural activity and expenditure incurred in the 3 months period to 30 September, the reported after tax loss 38mil is not reflective of the group results for the full financial year"
So..
05/06 started with 284mil "cash"
add 105mil from customer payments in that quarter
subtract 164mil for payments to suppliers and employees
subtract 32 mil income tax and some other finance/interest costs
means they chewed through 90mil in operations for that 3 months
subtract 82mil for buying lots of things (25% of that land)
add 215mil (this is that weird capitalized interest thing) "purchase of derivative financial instrument"
subtract 75mil for that annuity thing that pays the interest on one of the loans till 2012
add to that 200mil of additional borrowings
subtract from that 203 mil of repayment of last years borrowing
net result is 40mil of cash decreased from July 06, but still with $246mil cash on the balance sheet.
Now when you also check that balance sheet there is unencumbered land (note 16) representing land they have already paid for and land available via rotation. I expect this to be (at best) 10,000 ha.
This leaves them having to buy another 25000ha. At $7000pa this is $175mil. If my reserve estimates are wrong, we can make this $200mil if you like..
So I expect to see in the next annual at least another 200mil payment for investment property by 08 under "investing activities" . They will spend heaps on biological assets and plant and equipment too, but remember that last year they had 300mil of operation revenue last year and thus far we have not seen much of that (compare operation revenue between 2005 and 2006. If their operating revenue is the same or similar to last as last year then they will have 200odd mil operational revenue.
Net result is that at the end of this new FY their "cash" position will be a lot worse than the start of this year, but I feel they shouldn't need to borrow/raise equity until 2008, where we start all over again buying land and assets. I think they will need some $300mil here..
05/06 started with 118mil "cash"
add 244mil on operating income for the year
subtract 361mil for buying lots of things (half of that land)
add to that Trees money 124mil
add to that 204mil from "receipts from borrowing"
so after costs of issuing/obtaining that debt, net cashflow from financing is 284mil for 05/06.
Thus net increase in cash held of 168mil
add to the 118 at the start of the year and we have 286mil which is on the balance sheet.
then we have the Sept quarter. "given the nature of the groups seasonal operations, in which a majority of revenue is not recognized until the latter half of the financial year, but with a large amount of agricultural activity and expenditure incurred in the 3 months period to 30 September, the reported after tax loss 38mil is not reflective of the group results for the full financial year"
So..
05/06 started with 284mil "cash"
add 105mil from customer payments in that quarter
subtract 164mil for payments to suppliers and employees
subtract 32 mil income tax and some other finance/interest costs
means they chewed through 90mil in operations for that 3 months
subtract 82mil for buying lots of things (25% of that land)
add 215mil (this is that weird capitalized interest thing) "purchase of derivative financial instrument"
subtract 75mil for that annuity thing that pays the interest on one of the loans till 2012
add to that 200mil of additional borrowings
subtract from that 203 mil of repayment of last years borrowing
net result is 40mil of cash decreased from July 06, but still with $246mil cash on the balance sheet.
Now when you also check that balance sheet there is unencumbered land (note 16) representing land they have already paid for and land available via rotation. I expect this to be (at best) 10,000 ha.
This leaves them having to buy another 25000ha. At $7000pa this is $175mil. If my reserve estimates are wrong, we can make this $200mil if you like..
So I expect to see in the next annual at least another 200mil payment for investment property by 08 under "investing activities" . They will spend heaps on biological assets and plant and equipment too, but remember that last year they had 300mil of operation revenue last year and thus far we have not seen much of that (compare operation revenue between 2005 and 2006. If their operating revenue is the same or similar to last as last year then they will have 200odd mil operational revenue.
Net result is that at the end of this new FY their "cash" position will be a lot worse than the start of this year, but I feel they shouldn't need to borrow/raise equity until 2008, where we start all over again buying land and assets. I think they will need some $300mil here..
Hi Pch,
So, if the $247m "cash" (at 30/9/2006 in GTP’s account) could only stay in the bank as "deposit" but can't repay any of GTP's mountainous debt, then how would these "cash" be possibly able to buy the $7k/ha land GTP needs desperately by the end of March? Where would those $150m cash be from?
So, if the $247m "cash" (at 30/9/2006 in GTP’s account) could only stay in the bank as "deposit" but can't repay any of GTP's mountainous debt, then how would these "cash" be possibly able to buy the $7k/ha land GTP needs desperately by the end of March? Where would those $150m cash be from?
I'll come back to the cash/debt thing later, but today was a big slide for both TIM and GTP - maybe TIM gets pained with the same brush?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1833117.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1833117.htm
Hi Jackob,
Going back to the profit analysis (below) the question is raised: Does this company even make any money????? The profit and loss shows that it does (see below) but all the subsequent posts have been trying to decipher why there is no cash. I believe the answer is that yes there is a book profit ($2045 as shown below). But to earn this profit the company has to:
1. Buy land; and
2. Have it encumbered for 11 years by the grower.
Both of these have no effect on the profit and loss statement BUT THEY BOTH EFFECT CASHFLOW. We know they buy the land for $7k. But the big factor people forget is point 2. If they immediately sold that same parcel of land (with the 11 year encumberance) it would be worth around $2k (being generous) therefore there is a REAL EXPENSE THAT IS NOT BOOKED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS OF $5k per hectare.
So the question again: Does this company actually make any money?
Going back to the profit analysis (below) the question is raised: Does this company even make any money????? The profit and loss shows that it does (see below) but all the subsequent posts have been trying to decipher why there is no cash. I believe the answer is that yes there is a book profit ($2045 as shown below). But to earn this profit the company has to:
1. Buy land; and
2. Have it encumbered for 11 years by the grower.
Both of these have no effect on the profit and loss statement BUT THEY BOTH EFFECT CASHFLOW. We know they buy the land for $7k. But the big factor people forget is point 2. If they immediately sold that same parcel of land (with the 11 year encumberance) it would be worth around $2k (being generous) therefore there is a REAL EXPENSE THAT IS NOT BOOKED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS OF $5k per hectare.
So the question again: Does this company actually make any money?
Jackob said:Hi Portfolio,
Well done!
Profit and Loss:
1. $9,000 income
2. ($1,500) commissions / marketing etc
3. ($1,500) establishment expenses
4. ($1,000) expenses on established trees
5. ($1,000) office expenses
6. ($ 500 ) expenses on debt interest
7. $3.500 declared as profits before tax
8. ($1,050) corporate profit tax (30%)
9. $ 2,045 declared as profits after tax.
Cashflow Statement:
1. $9,000 received from securitized debt
2. ($1,500) paid to advisor and marketing
3. ($1,500) on establishing new plantations
4. ($1,000) expenses on established trees
5. ($1,000) office expenses
6. ($ 500) expenses on debt interest
7. $3,500 operating cash flow before tax
8. ($1,050) corporate profit tax (30%)
9. $2,045 declared as operating cash flow after tax
10. ($1,000) expenses on dividends
11. $1,045 left for buying land
Note:
1. GTP’s profit margin (before tax) was about 38% last year, so the $3500 profit (before tax) for each $9000 revenue is more realistic (Item 7).
2. Items 4 and 5 are increasing year by year as the area of established trees is increasing.
3. Debt interest (item 6) is also increasing dramatically. Last year’s debt increased from $80M by $532M to $612M. These debt will cost ~$65M p.a., more than 10% of the total revenue ($450M)
4. Just 2 or 3 years ago, GTP’s pulpwood revenue doubled year by year, so the item 1 in the cash flow table should be halved for each hectare new land.
Now return to the above tables. The $1045 cash left is not enough to buy a hectare of land, which is worth about $7000, so GTP has to borrow at least $5000, or ~56% of the $9000 revenue, from banks for it. [As said in the Note 3, last years new debt ($532M) in fact was about 118% of the total revenue ($450M)]. Say each hectare of land still only needs $5000 debt, which cost about $500 p.a. in interest. On the other hand, the valuation of the land is increased only 1% above inflation (say 3% pa) in long term. So the total revaluation of the land is about $7000*4% = $280 pa, which is far less than the interest cost. Thus the GTP pulpwood projects are actually in a chronic loss year by year, while in its accounts as shown in the above table, it still managed to have a huge profit margin (38%) and big profit and e/s so far.
So this is why people often say the GTP projects are unlikely sustainable in long-term, and why in recent years GTP’s debt is skyrocketing while its “profit” (and e/s) is flattish. Obviously, in the coming years GTP’s profit and e/s will have to drop, and its debt will further skyrocket.
Hi Portfolio,
My answer to your question is: No, this company isn’t making any money. As shown in my calculations you have quoted, this company is actually losing money.
A loophole in GTP’s accounting book is that they don’t retain any provision from the $9000/ha management fee for maintaining the plantation in the next 10 years of the project lifetime.
These maintenance expenditures should include (1) tree husbandry, (2) office expense overhead, (3) servicing the debt (or more accurately, servicing the deficit between the debt interest and land revaluation).
The total of these hidden expenditures in the future 10 years is much, much bigger than the “cash flow” of $1045/ha or “profit” of $2045/ha as shown in the table you quoted.
My answer to your question is: No, this company isn’t making any money. As shown in my calculations you have quoted, this company is actually losing money.
A loophole in GTP’s accounting book is that they don’t retain any provision from the $9000/ha management fee for maintaining the plantation in the next 10 years of the project lifetime.
These maintenance expenditures should include (1) tree husbandry, (2) office expense overhead, (3) servicing the debt (or more accurately, servicing the deficit between the debt interest and land revaluation).
The total of these hidden expenditures in the future 10 years is much, much bigger than the “cash flow” of $1045/ha or “profit” of $2045/ha as shown in the table you quoted.
Ouch that bites!
Australian stocks:
"Agribusiness Stocks: Great Southern Plantations Ltd., which manages vineyards and forestry plantations, slumped 51 cents, or 20 percent, to A$2.02. Timbercorp Ltd., an agribusiness investment manager, plunged 84 cents, or 31 percent, to A$1.87.
The Australian Taxation Office is preparing a ruling that investors in non-forestry agribusiness managed investment schemes will no longer be able to claim upfront taxation deductions for their contributions with effect from June 30, Timbercorp said in a statement, citing a government minister. "
"Great Southern said 70 percent of its sales last year came from forestry, and weren't affected by the ruling. "
yeah right, will be a great AGM today, imagine all their pretty powerpoint slides will be madly being edited as we speak..
Still, GTP are much less affected by this than TIM
Australian stocks:
"Agribusiness Stocks: Great Southern Plantations Ltd., which manages vineyards and forestry plantations, slumped 51 cents, or 20 percent, to A$2.02. Timbercorp Ltd., an agribusiness investment manager, plunged 84 cents, or 31 percent, to A$1.87.
The Australian Taxation Office is preparing a ruling that investors in non-forestry agribusiness managed investment schemes will no longer be able to claim upfront taxation deductions for their contributions with effect from June 30, Timbercorp said in a statement, citing a government minister. "
"Great Southern said 70 percent of its sales last year came from forestry, and weren't affected by the ruling. "
yeah right, will be a great AGM today, imagine all their pretty powerpoint slides will be madly being edited as we speak..
Still, GTP are much less affected by this than TIM
- Joined
- 11 January 2007
- Posts
- 791
- Reactions
- 1
Does anyone think a bounce back is on the cards tomorrow or havent we seen the low yet? I understand the news was potentially bad however has there been the usual over reaction?
CanOz
Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!
- Joined
- 11 July 2006
- Posts
- 11,543
- Reactions
- 519
TheAbyss said:
Its capitulation like BEI. But someone sees value as they are all closing well off the lows. The large GAP is a bit intimidating though.
Cheers,
PorscheACE
PorscheACE
- Joined
- 9 May 2006
- Posts
- 25
- Reactions
- 0
Does anyone have access to Last 10 Trades data for GTP closing market on 7/2/06?
I have just looked at this and it seems someone has purchased a MASSIVE amount of shares at crazy prices...does this look ok or has someone just said "SHOOT ME" ???
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 200 $4,380.000
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 15168 $332,179.200
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 5666 $124,085.400
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 4334 $94,914.600
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 2864 $62,721.600
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 5000 $109,500.000
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 5000 $109,500.000
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 7802 $170,863.800
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 30000 $657,000.000
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 655 $14,344.500
Comments people?
I have just looked at this and it seems someone has purchased a MASSIVE amount of shares at crazy prices...does this look ok or has someone just said "SHOOT ME" ???
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 200 $4,380.000
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 15168 $332,179.200
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 5666 $124,085.400
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 4334 $94,914.600
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 2864 $62,721.600
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 5000 $109,500.000
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 5000 $109,500.000
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 7802 $170,863.800
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 30000 $657,000.000
07-02-2007 04:10 PM $21.900 655 $14,344.500
Comments people?
CanOz
Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!
- Joined
- 11 July 2006
- Posts
- 11,543
- Reactions
- 519
PorscheACE said:
This is what i got:
4:10:53 PM 2.190 200
4:10:53 PM 2.190 15168
4:10:53 PM 2.190 5666
4:10:53 PM 2.190 4334
4:10:53 PM 2.190 2864
4:10:53 PM 2.190 5000
4:10:53 PM 2.190 5000
4:10:53 PM 2.190 7802
4:10:53 PM 2.190 30000
4:10:53 PM 2.190 655
