I sat in on an interesting meeting today. The presenter was an analyst who studies Exploration and Production (E&P) companies in the oil and natural gas business. At the end and as part of chatter wrapping up the meeting he made an interesting point.
He said that the Obama Environmental Bill essentially forcing certain CO2 emitters to "cap and trade" had an interesting rider - of 300 pages! Apparently, one of the amendments was a concession to coal companies. This amendment would give coal companies some form of credit to pay for the underground sequestering of emitted CO2. Apparently the amount of the credit made one operator in West Virginia pretty confident that profits would be maintained.
This is at least one cautious view on Carbon Sequestration, not to mention that in order to sequester all the coal fired emitted CO2 in the US, you would be sequestering 6x per day the amount of natural gas that is removed from the ground: http://www.awwa.org/files/ClimateTestimony.pdf
These actions by our politicians amaze me. I am not a scientist but similar to ethanol, it sounds as though Carbon Sequestration may not even be Co2 neutral (I am hard pressed to find anyone that will defend corn based ethanol today). In other words we create more of a carbon footprint with the combined megawatt creation through coal and sequestering of the resulting Co2 than in not sequestering at all. Additionally, just like the negative externalises of corn ethanol production, skyrocketing food prices, there are potential negative externalises of sequestering CO2, and the research has not even been completed yet to confirm or deny them!
If you think lying down for Big Coal is audacious, get real. The pols are trying to please everyone (Coal and Environmentalists) and in doing so are just creating more taxes for you and me and a less efficent market on the whole.
This returns to a key point I made in response to a comment yesterday: http://2outof4.blogspot.com/2009/06/thoughtfulness-and-free-markets-one.html
As I think about it more, I think it defines my philosophy toward a lot of the issues highlighted on 2outof4 on a much larger scale. You cannot have a free and competitive market when prices are obfuscated. When you do not have a real market, innovation is suppressed. So, if coal production is artificially made cheaper than say solar through the above credit, then consumers will clearly buy coal. Those guys tolling in the basement will not get their more efficient solar device to market because coal is pricing them out, albeit at a non-market price.
The same is true with regards to the high cost of education, the high cost of health care, the low teachers wages, the high cost of oil, the high cost of a machinist at a GM plant, etc. The politicians that we elect are far too frequently rolling over for the entities that can swing their votes, and not giving us a true free market society in which a rising tide will raise most of the boats.
When government is artificially controlling pricing, the greater cost burden falls on all of us. We can be sure of that.
-2outof4
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Book List Change: Atlas Conquered
I spent a few days last week on Florida's Redneck Riviera. Love the white sand and clear water there.
Early in the trip I finished a book that took me three renewals and a post-surgery lull to finish. Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' is a timely novel depicting the possibilities of free enterprise and limitations of government control.
http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0452011876/ref=ed_oe_p
There is a reason more copies of this book were sold last year than in its original year of publishing, 1957, and that is because people want to understand and read about what happens when special interests and power-hungry political operatives control pricing across industries.
Whether one sees eye to eye with all or parts of Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, it is hard not to read this book and project the points and outcomes on to today's America - a scary prospect indeed.
After getting through an introduction that was written in the airy tone of an academic, the actual novel itself was remarkably easy to read. Rand keeps your interest with sharp plot and character development whilst illustrating her greater points.
Early in the trip I finished a book that took me three renewals and a post-surgery lull to finish. Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' is a timely novel depicting the possibilities of free enterprise and limitations of government control.
http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0452011876/ref=ed_oe_p
There is a reason more copies of this book were sold last year than in its original year of publishing, 1957, and that is because people want to understand and read about what happens when special interests and power-hungry political operatives control pricing across industries.
Whether one sees eye to eye with all or parts of Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, it is hard not to read this book and project the points and outcomes on to today's America - a scary prospect indeed.
After getting through an introduction that was written in the airy tone of an academic, the actual novel itself was remarkably easy to read. Rand keeps your interest with sharp plot and character development whilst illustrating her greater points.
In my view, this is a must-read for everyone. I will add Atlas to the Book list and remove Andy Kessler's.
-2outof4
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thoughtfulness and Free Markets: One
Thanks to a good friend for sending me this article. I had seen it mentioned on CNBC this morning, but did not get the chance to see the interview with Mr. Burd.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536722522229323.html
Reading this fills me with hope that the brutal healthcare debate may actually find a market based solution rather than layering in additional fixed costs that cannot be covered down the road. I'm literally excited as I type this post.
The key seems to be the opening up to everyone of healthcare costs! Lack of opacity defines a market and when there is a market there is competition. If one could effectively shop for his or her healthcare needs, one could influence the pricing and drive that pricing to a market equilibrium.
If I could have shopped for ACL surgeries and if I had to pay for some of the surgery, you better believe that I would have found the best combination of price, location, and quality of doc. Instead, I just got lucky that the doc I went to was excellent and I could have given two hoots about the cost because I did not pay out of pocket. (Note: it was over $4k.)
If you want to provide healthcare for everyone across the board, then similar to a Flat or Fair Tax, I propose that people below a certain income level would receive free government subsidies in place of the support they receive now. I believe this would be cheaper and in the end provide better care than the current medicare system. There is no reason why poor people cannot make smart economic decisions as well.
The tougher issue becomes those people who don't qualify as needy but whose employers don't cover part of healthcare. That is a difficult situation. However, costs in general will be lower across medical needs (potentially higher for some treatments/procedures) and at least those people will have better information to shop their medical needs.
It appears so clear to me that we need to open up all these government, et al medical databases and make pricing available. Too many special interests win out at the cost of the average person when pricing is hidden. The current and potentially future public options keep the cloak of big government and special interests over pricing and end up taxing us all more.
Who knew the head of a grocery chain could make me feel so excited on a dreary Friday!
-2outof4
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536722522229323.html
Reading this fills me with hope that the brutal healthcare debate may actually find a market based solution rather than layering in additional fixed costs that cannot be covered down the road. I'm literally excited as I type this post.
The key seems to be the opening up to everyone of healthcare costs! Lack of opacity defines a market and when there is a market there is competition. If one could effectively shop for his or her healthcare needs, one could influence the pricing and drive that pricing to a market equilibrium.
If I could have shopped for ACL surgeries and if I had to pay for some of the surgery, you better believe that I would have found the best combination of price, location, and quality of doc. Instead, I just got lucky that the doc I went to was excellent and I could have given two hoots about the cost because I did not pay out of pocket. (Note: it was over $4k.)
If you want to provide healthcare for everyone across the board, then similar to a Flat or Fair Tax, I propose that people below a certain income level would receive free government subsidies in place of the support they receive now. I believe this would be cheaper and in the end provide better care than the current medicare system. There is no reason why poor people cannot make smart economic decisions as well.
The tougher issue becomes those people who don't qualify as needy but whose employers don't cover part of healthcare. That is a difficult situation. However, costs in general will be lower across medical needs (potentially higher for some treatments/procedures) and at least those people will have better information to shop their medical needs.
It appears so clear to me that we need to open up all these government, et al medical databases and make pricing available. Too many special interests win out at the cost of the average person when pricing is hidden. The current and potentially future public options keep the cloak of big government and special interests over pricing and end up taxing us all more.
Who knew the head of a grocery chain could make me feel so excited on a dreary Friday!
-2outof4
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Stock Interest List Update
MW - reported 1Q09 earnings on 6/8. This earnings report provided a more interesting entry point for a short as the stock went up significantly on the day.
I understand the comparative store sales figure has improved across the Company’s formats, but at a huge sacrifice to margin. The total revenue is declining (even with the supportive tux business) and store count is completely stagnant. I’m not sure I see the 16x FY09 earnings multiple that one calculates by extrapolating the 1Q earnings beat to each of the quarters in FY09 (i.e. adding 48c to the consensus of 82c prior to the 1Q release).
The FCF looked great but almost all of it came from the YoY delta in Accounts Payable, which I would assume will reverse a bit and even out through the year. MW has not had such a 1Q benefit from rising AP in the last four 1Q’s. The only justification for today’s valuation is based on normalized margins and cash flow. But I don’t see these things returning to normal within the next year to two years - see what happened to Net Income in 1Q. As such, MW remains on the stock interest list.
LULU - Lululemon Athletica Inc. is a retailer of yoga related gear and accessories. One has the opportunity to short this after the short interest has come in following the rally in the shares.
The knock on this short will be that there are only 114 stores and plenty of room for expansion. Whereas that is true, revenue growth in 1Q09 (ended May 3rd) was only 6%, while is comparative store sales was negative 8%. Despite this it appears this niche provider is being valued as a growth stock while doing mid-single digit negative comps and seeing the income statement falling apart.
Gross margin percentage in 1Q09 amounted to 42.8% from 53.4% YoY. Operating margin fell to 12.1% from 15.5% YoY. Meanwhile EPS in the quarter declined by 25%.
My conservative DCF does not come close to justifying the multiple on this Company. I went to the local store over the weekend and it had five women in the shop. One guy was waiting for his significant other and not shopping. I was the only male browsing and I could not find anything for under $30 and while I admit the quality is excellent, anything I would have bought cost $98, and I could not justify it. This is not a significant sample, but on just next door Urban Outfitters was literally packed with shoppers.
LULU seems like the epitome of discretionary spend because it is so substitutable. As such, and in part because I still hold a negative view of the consumer in general in the near-term, I am adding LULU to the Short Interest List.
-2outof4
I understand the comparative store sales figure has improved across the Company’s formats, but at a huge sacrifice to margin. The total revenue is declining (even with the supportive tux business) and store count is completely stagnant. I’m not sure I see the 16x FY09 earnings multiple that one calculates by extrapolating the 1Q earnings beat to each of the quarters in FY09 (i.e. adding 48c to the consensus of 82c prior to the 1Q release).
The FCF looked great but almost all of it came from the YoY delta in Accounts Payable, which I would assume will reverse a bit and even out through the year. MW has not had such a 1Q benefit from rising AP in the last four 1Q’s. The only justification for today’s valuation is based on normalized margins and cash flow. But I don’t see these things returning to normal within the next year to two years - see what happened to Net Income in 1Q. As such, MW remains on the stock interest list.
LULU - Lululemon Athletica Inc. is a retailer of yoga related gear and accessories. One has the opportunity to short this after the short interest has come in following the rally in the shares.
The knock on this short will be that there are only 114 stores and plenty of room for expansion. Whereas that is true, revenue growth in 1Q09 (ended May 3rd) was only 6%, while is comparative store sales was negative 8%. Despite this it appears this niche provider is being valued as a growth stock while doing mid-single digit negative comps and seeing the income statement falling apart.
Gross margin percentage in 1Q09 amounted to 42.8% from 53.4% YoY. Operating margin fell to 12.1% from 15.5% YoY. Meanwhile EPS in the quarter declined by 25%.
My conservative DCF does not come close to justifying the multiple on this Company. I went to the local store over the weekend and it had five women in the shop. One guy was waiting for his significant other and not shopping. I was the only male browsing and I could not find anything for under $30 and while I admit the quality is excellent, anything I would have bought cost $98, and I could not justify it. This is not a significant sample, but on just next door Urban Outfitters was literally packed with shoppers.
LULU seems like the epitome of discretionary spend because it is so substitutable. As such, and in part because I still hold a negative view of the consumer in general in the near-term, I am adding LULU to the Short Interest List.
-2outof4
Isn't Risk What It is All About?
Posting has definitely slowed down as Skyping has gone up! Hey, Mrs. 2outof4 deserves the attention!
Today President Obama and the Administration unveiled a framework for re-regulating the financial services industry. Read a description at either of the links below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061701834_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009061703105
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124524649229423271.html
There is an 85 page white paper linked within the two articles. I see some good, such as the plan to provide for the orderly wind down of failing banks in to protect depositors and prevent general panic. This was the manner in which I thought the original melt down within the banking sector should have been dealt with instead of the taxpayers funding all these zombie banks - but they could not accomplish it in a timely manner.
However, as with most attempts by government to regulate markets, this plan is based on poorly constructed goals and silly premises.
Both articles note the following quote. "Millions of Americans who have worked hard and behaved responsibly have seen their life dreams eroded by the irresponsibility of others and by the failure of their government to provide adequate oversight," Mr. Obama said. "Our entire economy has been undermined by that failure."
What does this mean? As I have said from the beginning, there has been a great amount of abhorrent behavior by many players in the unfolding financial crisis - think the orange man himself, Angelo Mozillo, who the government is going after for insider trading. But from the beginning I have said that just about everybody was compliant in their quest for a quick buck. That includes the lunchroom worker in Brooklyn with six mortgages.
Life dreams have eroded for people who took stupid risks. That ranges from the bank prop desk using little margin to the family of four that purchased a home which left it with a mortgage payment just under its monthly income.
If the Administration is broadly referring to retirement funds, yes people did lose out. However, people should realize that markets will not go up for ever. I did not expect to lose 40%, but I did not bank on 10% a year into perpetuity either. I've seen proposals that that suggest Government run 401k equivalent that guarantee 3% a year. That plan goes hummingly until the market has a 15% down year and blows the whole system out of whack!
We must keep some degree of personal responsibility and risk taking in the system. This proposal sounds like the government wants to control risk taking. How does the Administration think that the US became the most productive in the world?
Strangely, it looks like the WaPo article that I posted above changed whilst I was writing this post. The one I read originally mentioned that the White Paper suggested regulation for banks to make loans in the areas of their deposit base. If this doesn't smack of Fannie and Freddie and the old days of mortgages/loans for everyone, I don't know what does.
Clearly 2outof4 supports free markets and limited interventionist policies. However, we do not want to be blind to any benefits of the current proposal. What do you see in it that may actual help the economy and America's long-term productivity?
-2outof4
Today President Obama and the Administration unveiled a framework for re-regulating the financial services industry. Read a description at either of the links below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061701834_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009061703105
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124524649229423271.html
There is an 85 page white paper linked within the two articles. I see some good, such as the plan to provide for the orderly wind down of failing banks in to protect depositors and prevent general panic. This was the manner in which I thought the original melt down within the banking sector should have been dealt with instead of the taxpayers funding all these zombie banks - but they could not accomplish it in a timely manner.
However, as with most attempts by government to regulate markets, this plan is based on poorly constructed goals and silly premises.
Both articles note the following quote. "Millions of Americans who have worked hard and behaved responsibly have seen their life dreams eroded by the irresponsibility of others and by the failure of their government to provide adequate oversight," Mr. Obama said. "Our entire economy has been undermined by that failure."
What does this mean? As I have said from the beginning, there has been a great amount of abhorrent behavior by many players in the unfolding financial crisis - think the orange man himself, Angelo Mozillo, who the government is going after for insider trading. But from the beginning I have said that just about everybody was compliant in their quest for a quick buck. That includes the lunchroom worker in Brooklyn with six mortgages.
Life dreams have eroded for people who took stupid risks. That ranges from the bank prop desk using little margin to the family of four that purchased a home which left it with a mortgage payment just under its monthly income.
If the Administration is broadly referring to retirement funds, yes people did lose out. However, people should realize that markets will not go up for ever. I did not expect to lose 40%, but I did not bank on 10% a year into perpetuity either. I've seen proposals that that suggest Government run 401k equivalent that guarantee 3% a year. That plan goes hummingly until the market has a 15% down year and blows the whole system out of whack!
We must keep some degree of personal responsibility and risk taking in the system. This proposal sounds like the government wants to control risk taking. How does the Administration think that the US became the most productive in the world?
Strangely, it looks like the WaPo article that I posted above changed whilst I was writing this post. The one I read originally mentioned that the White Paper suggested regulation for banks to make loans in the areas of their deposit base. If this doesn't smack of Fannie and Freddie and the old days of mortgages/loans for everyone, I don't know what does.
Clearly 2outof4 supports free markets and limited interventionist policies. However, we do not want to be blind to any benefits of the current proposal. What do you see in it that may actual help the economy and America's long-term productivity?
-2outof4
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Brushed Under the Table or Not?
So, I heard during each of the last couple of commutes to work that the Chrysler Senior Debt Holders were receiving 30 cents on the dollar.
Or really?
I thought the subject of a prior post and President Obama's subjugation a few weeks ago was that a group of hedge funds and other institutional investors had held out for 60 cents on the dollar and forced the bankruptcy. This is apparently not the case:
http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-directly-threatened-perella-weinberg-over-chrysler-2009-5
My boss told me today that I had missed the change in the Senior Debtors stance because I do not watch Fox News. Apparently, the folks there have been up in arms about it. The news certainly did not get much play in mainstream media.
There is hope though. The Treasurer of Indiana on behalf of some Indiana pension funds was successful stalling the bankruptcy proceedings. As a result of his actions Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stopped the sale of Chrysler "pending further order".
All of these backroom dealings and leaning by the Administration is no better than some of the alleged maneuverings of the previous Administration.
Let it all play out in court and hopefully our previously sacred US contract law will be upheld. There is no reason to keep things below board.
-2outof4
Or really?
I thought the subject of a prior post and President Obama's subjugation a few weeks ago was that a group of hedge funds and other institutional investors had held out for 60 cents on the dollar and forced the bankruptcy. This is apparently not the case:
http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-directly-threatened-perella-weinberg-over-chrysler-2009-5
My boss told me today that I had missed the change in the Senior Debtors stance because I do not watch Fox News. Apparently, the folks there have been up in arms about it. The news certainly did not get much play in mainstream media.
There is hope though. The Treasurer of Indiana on behalf of some Indiana pension funds was successful stalling the bankruptcy proceedings. As a result of his actions Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stopped the sale of Chrysler "pending further order".
All of these backroom dealings and leaning by the Administration is no better than some of the alleged maneuverings of the previous Administration.
Let it all play out in court and hopefully our previously sacred US contract law will be upheld. There is no reason to keep things below board.
-2outof4
Monday, June 8, 2009
Dreamin' or Screamin'?
I was going to copy and paste an opinion piece titled "California Screamin'" from Barron's over the weekend. However, it seems they edit their HTML so it cannot be cut and pasted. Smart!
Essentially the opinion piece discusses how Califronia has kept down certain revenue streams over the last few decades, but at the same time increased entitlement expenditures, which were affordable in good times (rising home prices) but difficult to handle during hard times.
It is hard to imagine a State whose GDP would rank it as the eighth largest economy in the world (as of 2008), if it were a country, in such dire straits. In the article you would have seen that California seems less worse off than the US as a whole in terms of deficit and debt to GDP, but do not forget, Cali can't print money!
My immediate thought on the article is that you could substitute in a family or individual in Anywhere, USA and envision the same snowball effect. If I keep layering in fixed expenses to my personal budget, and my income suddenly dwindles or goes away, I am going to be underwater quickly. Fortunately, I have flexibility to cut things like the HD box and high speed Internet, States can move with much less expedience to cut so-called entitlements.
As the article notes, people who are getting more for less are not going to volunteer to give up benefits. But these mounting deficits are avoidable. I do not understand why the legislature would raise unemployment benefits while not ear-marking a source of revenues to pay those expenses. My calculations using the numbers quoted in the article puts that $29 billion in unemployment benefits less $11 in tax revenues to pay said benefits, or $18 billion deficit as 20% of this year's projected deficit of $92 billion (5% of CA GDP, which is estimated at 13% of US GDP, which was $14.2 trillion in 2008). It is not hard for one to imagine the other entitlement programs that have sunk California into debt.
The brilliant legislature's last resort to get Cali out of this deficit position? You got it - raise taxes. If you have been reading the Blog for a while, you know if there is one economic concept that I believe, its that raising taxes on business is the surest way to get those businesses to move to a neighboring state - leaving the home state with less tax revenue. Cali already has the 6th largest state tax burden to GDP in the US.
The solution to this mess? Plan smarter. Put aside political gain for long-term viability that does not cramp growth. Do not expand entitlements if you cannot point to the funds to pay for them, especially on a rainy day.
In the end expanding unfunded entitlements will drive productivity out of California, or any state in a similar situation, at an increasing rate!
-2outof4
Essentially the opinion piece discusses how Califronia has kept down certain revenue streams over the last few decades, but at the same time increased entitlement expenditures, which were affordable in good times (rising home prices) but difficult to handle during hard times.
It is hard to imagine a State whose GDP would rank it as the eighth largest economy in the world (as of 2008), if it were a country, in such dire straits. In the article you would have seen that California seems less worse off than the US as a whole in terms of deficit and debt to GDP, but do not forget, Cali can't print money!
My immediate thought on the article is that you could substitute in a family or individual in Anywhere, USA and envision the same snowball effect. If I keep layering in fixed expenses to my personal budget, and my income suddenly dwindles or goes away, I am going to be underwater quickly. Fortunately, I have flexibility to cut things like the HD box and high speed Internet, States can move with much less expedience to cut so-called entitlements.
As the article notes, people who are getting more for less are not going to volunteer to give up benefits. But these mounting deficits are avoidable. I do not understand why the legislature would raise unemployment benefits while not ear-marking a source of revenues to pay those expenses. My calculations using the numbers quoted in the article puts that $29 billion in unemployment benefits less $11 in tax revenues to pay said benefits, or $18 billion deficit as 20% of this year's projected deficit of $92 billion (5% of CA GDP, which is estimated at 13% of US GDP, which was $14.2 trillion in 2008). It is not hard for one to imagine the other entitlement programs that have sunk California into debt.
The brilliant legislature's last resort to get Cali out of this deficit position? You got it - raise taxes. If you have been reading the Blog for a while, you know if there is one economic concept that I believe, its that raising taxes on business is the surest way to get those businesses to move to a neighboring state - leaving the home state with less tax revenue. Cali already has the 6th largest state tax burden to GDP in the US.
The solution to this mess? Plan smarter. Put aside political gain for long-term viability that does not cramp growth. Do not expand entitlements if you cannot point to the funds to pay for them, especially on a rainy day.
In the end expanding unfunded entitlements will drive productivity out of California, or any state in a similar situation, at an increasing rate!
-2outof4
Firsts
Well there may be reason for some more frequent posts. Mrs. 2outof4 is enjoying her first summer of graduate school, which unfortunately takes her far away to the Mother Land and then off to the land of multiple mothers. There is a reason our front license plate says "My wife and all our money go to Penn!"
I would also like to wish my brother-in-law an excellent first return on Home Leave from Iraq. He has to go back, but is very close to returning for good.
It seems to run in the family, but I would like to congratulate my father-in-law on his first few weeks of service in Iraq as his PRT attempts to foster relations and sound diplomatic practices in helping guide the Iraqis toward self-governance.
I would be remiss if I did not mention a certain University baseball team that is off to its first College World Series in Omaha, NE.
And who would have ever guessed, but I even found my way to Facebook for the first time over the weekend. My profile is under the name my mama gave me. I resisted FB for a long time, but it is a really neat way to keep in touch with people. Does anyone know how to link 2outof4 on FB as something that I'm a fan of in my profile?
The excitement does not stop here guys! Tonight I lifted 30lbs with my left leg on the single leg extension machine for the first time since my surgery. It is just one step closer to being able to hangout with these guys for the close of A-Basin next year:
http://bucketsinlittleton.blogspot.com/2009/06/pond-skimming.html
That dude in the tan leisure suit is the guy who filmed my demise!
-2outof4
I would also like to wish my brother-in-law an excellent first return on Home Leave from Iraq. He has to go back, but is very close to returning for good.
It seems to run in the family, but I would like to congratulate my father-in-law on his first few weeks of service in Iraq as his PRT attempts to foster relations and sound diplomatic practices in helping guide the Iraqis toward self-governance.
I would be remiss if I did not mention a certain University baseball team that is off to its first College World Series in Omaha, NE.
And who would have ever guessed, but I even found my way to Facebook for the first time over the weekend. My profile is under the name my mama gave me. I resisted FB for a long time, but it is a really neat way to keep in touch with people. Does anyone know how to link 2outof4 on FB as something that I'm a fan of in my profile?
The excitement does not stop here guys! Tonight I lifted 30lbs with my left leg on the single leg extension machine for the first time since my surgery. It is just one step closer to being able to hangout with these guys for the close of A-Basin next year:
http://bucketsinlittleton.blogspot.com/2009/06/pond-skimming.html
That dude in the tan leisure suit is the guy who filmed my demise!
-2outof4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
