# Effects of interest rates.



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Been saying this for years, now mainstream media is clueing in...

https://www.macleans.ca/economy/rea...term=economy&utm_content=0#Echobox=1550251676


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

It will be interesting to see if the Bank of Canada is able to prolong the bubble by pausing or cutting interest rates again.

I doubt the BoC will want to burst the bubble in everything (housing, bank stocks, retirements) by hiking interest rates.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Been saying this for years, now mainstream media is clueing in...
> 
> https://www.macleans.ca/economy/rea...term=economy&utm_content=0#Echobox=1550251676


Stopped reading after comment "always able to come out ahead & today everything has stalled." Organized real estate always promotes real estate as doing better then it is. BS as to everything has stalled prices are down & have been going down for about 2 years.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Could we see 100 year amortizations in the future ?

Maybe that is what Andrew Scheer is talking about when he pledges to making homes more "affordable" by changing the mortgage rules.

I have difficulty thinking of how else he plans to do it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

james4beach said:


> It will be interesting to see if the Bank of Canada is able to prolong the bubble by pausing or cutting interest rates again.
> 
> I doubt the BoC will want to burst the bubble in everything (housing, bank stocks, retirements) by hiking interest rates.


That is what people said before the BOC allowed interest rates to rise to 21%. We were paying those kinds of interest rates for years. The lowest we ever paid in 25 years was 7.99%.

We never made any "huge" money in real estate. The high mortgage payments kept home prices low for decades. We owned homes for years and lost money when we sold them.

I "wish" we could have made hundreds of thousands of dollars simply living in a house, but it never worked out that way for us.

For us, home ownership was strictly an expensive lifestyle choice.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

The fix is lower house prices. 

You can't do that by offering longer mortgages, leveraging retirement accts for down payments or other govt well intentioned but wrong headed plans. Low rates, easy access to cash, relaxed borrowing rules led to this. Cash poor seniors get subsidized or can delay paying taxes to stay in their expensive homes limiting supply and driving prices up. Govt intervention that makes things worse. Now it seems there needs to be pain for it to fix itself. 

Raise rates prudently and keep tighter borrowing rules. Keep relaxed rental regs so rental supply will increase.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sags, what reality are you living in...we never had 21% interest for “years”. It was one year at most. Why do you even bother posting, everything you say is made up. 

Most people, even with the real estate boom of the past 20 years, didn’t make actual money on their homes if they actually factored in all the costs of living, interest, upgrades, maintenance and everything else. That’s why people are still broke and in debt, despite rising house prices. 

Those that did, usually just transferred their “profits” to a larger house, meaning they’ll lose it in the correction because people need housing and aren’t renting. 

Lonewolf,

I can say that housing has pretty much stalled across the country, there are a few exceptions, and prices have been falling for at least two years. You may not want to believe it, but it’s what I’m seeing, so mccleans has it right. 

I’m off today to look at three places which I expect to offer around 50k each for. I couldn’t do that two years ago.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Just a Guy said:


> Sags, what reality are you living in...we never had 21% interest for “years”. It was one year at most. Why do you even bother posting, everything you say is made up.
> 
> Most people, even with the real estate boom of the past 20 years, didn’t make actual money on their homes if they actually factored in all the costs of living, interest, upgrades, maintenance and everything else. That’s why people are still broke and in debt, despite rising house prices.
> 
> ...


what am i missing ? where and what are buying a domicile for 50K ?


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

I had to pay 21.75% for a year circa 1982 on a $76000 house, i think the mortgage was around $60000. The following year it went down to 19.75 but it stayed there for quite a while. It was a struggle.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Been saying this for years, now mainstream media is clueing in...
> 
> https://www.macleans.ca/economy/rea...term=economy&utm_content=0#Echobox=1550251676


Damn, but we all envy your prescience! Say something for enough years and, chances are, it will come to pass. With interest rates at near zero, I doubt it has really taken until now for the media to clue in to what you alone have known all along. Of course rates will rise and the market will fall. That should have many - you especially - cheering. Just like the stock market taking a cyclical crash. A great time to buy, while others are despondently selling. 

I'll make my own prediction here. The housing recession will come, for sure, but it will not last forever. That's what was said circa 1981 when the prime rate went to 22.75%. I owned 4 Vancouver houses at the time and I well recall. Folks around me were selling at significant losses, wringing there hands and saying things like: "That's it. It's done. Crazy prices like that will never be seen again. Only a fool would ever buy real estate." That was when my principal residence (purchased in 1979 for $110,000) dropped in market value from about $275,000 to about $140,000. The house across the street, estate sale, listed at $450,000 just as the market was starting to fall. They turned down an offer at $419,000. The place sat empty for two years, then sold for $250,000. I sold my place in 1989 (when interest rates were still in the 11% range) for $525,000 - a near fivefold increase in 10 years, despite interest rates in those 10 years that many today regard as unacceptable. We need those rates back again and I hope we'll see them soon. Yes, there will be bloodletting. Just like early 80s. Highly therapeutic. I am not averse to scooping up a few deals when it comes. I was not so well positioned the last time. Some of my Vancouver rentals were financed by what is now called a HELOC on my principal residence. The amount was $120,000 at Bank of BC prime plus 1.5%. So I ended up paying 24.25% for awhile. Not pleasant, but I did it and came through just fine. My accountant at the time was a CA who had grown up in Israel. He predicted the prime would go to 40%. That was a figure that made me nervous so I refinanced one fourplex property with a 5-year mortgage at 23.99%. My CA told me that, in Israel, at least then, there was no such thing as a mortgage as rates had to be high and the rates so volatile that no one would lend. It's hilarious to see so much angst over the possibility of mortgage interest of 6% or so. In that case, let the bad times roll!

So, continuing with my prediction, say mortgage rates return to a more normal 10% or so in the next few years and the sky falls, I predict housing prices in 20 years well above where they are now. Mark your calendars accordingly.

I say all of this recognizing that my ox too will be gored when things hit the skids. My real estate holdings in Canada will depreciate. My forest lands will be rendered worthless for a time. Construction will halt, there will be no market for lumber and even less for raw logs. Boo hoo. But, like everyone here, I believe, I have heeded the trite advice to be diversified. So, like most here, what i don't make on the bananas, I'll make on the grapes.



Just a Guy said:


> I’m off today to look at three places which I expect to offer around 50k each for. I couldn’t do that two years ago.


Don't be in such a hurry there young feller. Sit back for a few more years and go buy those same places for $25k a pop. So you - and your kids just getting into the game - should be thrilled. No one can afford to buy, but people still have to live somewhere. You'll be able to buy whole city blocks and get them tenanted. You know there will be winners and losers in the great depression. You should be positioned to win in superb style.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

fatcat said:


> what am i missing ? where and what are buying a domicile for 50K ?


A few months ago I did a post where I went from
One side of the country to the other posting a listing in every province, a major city, with a listing for under $100k. The reason I could do this was I actually look for such properties, I don’t go around saying they don’t exist. 

Muk, I see you posted another novel with quotes from me. As I said before, I won’t waste my time reading them, so if you are trying to bait me as usual, you’re wasting your time.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

fatcat said:


> what am i missing ? where and what are buying a domicile for 50K ?


If one specializes in slum dwellings, they can be found.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Not slums, nice places, fairly average neighbourhood, close to schools, good transit, shopping, even post secondary. 

But I’m sure a guy who names himself after a drug band and lives in the woods knows much more about real estate across Canada than god himself. 

P.S. I’m impressed you managed to express a point in under 17 cchapters.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Didn't you say you did not read my posts?

Who is this god to whom you refer?

I am not too sure what constitutes a "drug band". Google could not assist. Is it a group of people who take illicit drugs? Is it a musical group that makes use of illicit drugs? Something else? So far as I am aware, no person or association of persons has any particular copyright in the term "mukhang pera". It's a well-known pejorative term in Tagalog which translates into English as "money face". Mahirap tanggihan ang pera lalo na sa taong mukhang pera tulad ko! Naiintindihan mo ba, kuya JAG?


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

This article completely misses the point. Most do.

This is simple economics. Interest rates play a role,. but they are really a symptom of a bigger problem. There are not millions of vacant homes in this country owned by speculators betting on higher prices caused by low interest rates. There are, however, a million people moving to Canada every 3 years. They need homes, and they are not being built fast enough. Taxes are high, and infrastructure is not being built by cities (roads, transit, etc) fast enough. With demand increasing faster than supply, speculators can also profit. 30 years since the last real housing correction has resulted in big bankrolls backing housing.

As long as status quo is maintained, prices will be high. Higher interest rates won't be enough; people will find a way to cram more people into houses, share mortgages, amortizations will be extended, etc etc. 

Until there are more houses than people to buy them, prices will be high or go higher.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i had no idea you could buy a house for 50K in canada regardless of condition, can somebody just name a couple of cities where these can be bought ?

i assume probably new brunswick and maybe newfoundland, maybe small prairie towns ... but like actually 50K ?

agree with doctrine that a million people every 3 years and we are going to see housing continue to climb ... certainly in any areas that have anything like a reasonable employment base

pd. i am enjoying the witty and high-quality personal insults in this thread guys, keep up the good work


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I didn’t say houses. You can find townhouses, apartments and other such rental properties though. Cheapest house I’ve bought in the past 20 years was $130k. Did it twice and flipped them for a good profit.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Mukhang pera said:


> Who is this god to whom you refer?


Why the only one you worship, the one you see in the mirror each day. You are a lawyer after all. All knowing, all ego.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Jane street in Toronto you can buy for under $100,000 but you know what you are getting there.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Canada is a very big place, there’s a lot more to it than GTA and GTV, but not for those who live there apparently...


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

fatcat said:


> agree with doctrine that a million people every 3 years and we are going to see housing continue to climb ... certainly in any areas that have anything like a reasonable employment base


I'll agree too, to a point. I am sure many were moving to Canada in the 80s when interest rates took off. That cooled the market notwithstanding. I think we could see the same again, even if borrowing rates went only to a modest 10% in the next year or so.



fatcat said:


> pd. i am enjoying the witty and high-quality personal insults in this thread guys, keep up the good work


Glad you are enjoying the repartee. Good clean fun, but only for a brief thrust and parry. JAG has a much greater appetite for prolonging it, viz. his relentless attacks in threads such as "organized religion", climate change and "why faith won't work" to name a few. Some he starts, such as the latter, to provide a vehicle to hurl calumnies. Then they run for pages. Gets too tedious pour moi.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> That is what people said before the BOC allowed interest rates to rise to 21%. We were paying those kinds of interest rates for years. The lowest we ever paid in 25 years was 7.99% ...


You seem to be confusing BoC rates with what financial institutions charged. Over 17% lasted for about a year with over 20% being about four months. Over 10% was about twelve years ... if we are talking BoC rates.


Cheers


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Lonewolf,
> 
> I can say that housing has pretty much stalled across the country, there are a few exceptions, and prices have been falling for at least two years. You may not want to believe it, but it’s what I’m seeing, so mccleans has it right.
> 
> I’m off today to look at three places which I expect to offer around 50k each for. I couldn’t do that two years ago.


 As for stalling I guess it can be taken 2 ways stalling in terms of price or stalling in terms of sales. I took it as price though either way it is down.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Canada is a very big place, there’s a lot more to it than GTA and GTV, but not for those who live there apparently...


MY brother in law just had a duplex built about an hour outside Gander Newfoundland , both sides are 1200 sq ft 1.5 bathrooms ,for this he paid $215,000 in a town with under 2000 people living in it.You may not recall but when i joined 7 years ago I was very active in investment properties and even bought one unseen in Georgia through my friend for $40,000USD ,I still have it and get $800 a month for it .But I have spent alot of time on mls looking all over Canada even in Newfoundland and tough to find 'doors' at prices you are claiming.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I still think that modern day central bankers come from a school of thought that low interest rates and constant stimulus are beneficial for the economy. I believe they want to keep inflating and stimulating.

The only thing that would likely stop the BoC and other central banks from this low interest regime is notably higher inflation. It hasn't happened yet, but I agree it's possible (this is why I keep a 20% gold allocation).

But so far, with inflation being as low as it is, I doubt the BoC will sit by and watch home prices plunge. My guess is that if Canada-wide home prices decline significantly, the BoC will lower rates, and/or CMHC and the federal government will stimulate using other tools.

This is the world we live in. Hundreds of billions of $ of stimulus from CMHC, rock bottom (2%) overnight rates from BoC, and *trillions* of $ of global stimulus from central banks. All of this is considered normal. In a way, there's no going back now. If this deflates, then pensions will get wiped out, home prices will get wiped out, and the net worth of most Canadians would plummet along with their huge home prices.

I seriously doubt the Bank of Canada wants to let that happen. They committed themselves to inflating home prices some time ago... why stop now?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> That is what people said before the BOC allowed interest rates to rise to 21%.


Inflation was high back then, and that's what forced the central bank's hand. As long as inflation is nil (as it is currently) the central bank has a green light to keep rates low.

There are additional factors today that change the picture vs the 70s and 80s. Pension plans across the country are dramatically underfunded, and due to chronically low interest rates, have been forced to take more equity risk. These pensions need stock market gains. We also have RRSPs, where people have taken retirement savings into their own hands (with loss of pensions). Again the RRSPs are equity heavy and need stock market gains. Finally, home prices today are a huge part of most people's net worth... the homes _are_ the retirement plan.

All of those factors mean the Bank of Canada wants to stimulate and inflate houses & stocks as much as possible because otherwise, tons of retirements will go up in smoke. The central banks (including BoC) have created a scenario in which there is no choice but to keep aggressively low interest rates, and keep stimulating.

I see three possible outcomes over the next 20 years

(1) the central banks keep stimulating, homes and stocks keep rising while inflation stays low and everything works out OK
or
(2) inflation picks up, central banks then raise rates, and all asset prices drop severely, especially stocks & real estate
or
(3) inflation picks up, central banks stubbornly keep rates low, the currency disintegrates, and all Canadians become poor


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> You seem to be confusing BoC rates with what financial institutions charged. Over 17% lasted for about a year with over 20% being about four months. Over 10% was about twelve years ... if we are talking BoC rates.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Mortgages were locked into 5 year terms with a 25 year amortization. If you had to buy or renew your mortgage at 21%....tough luck for the next 5 years.

If BOC rates didn't affect mortgages, loans, credit cards, GICs.......nobody would care about the BOC rate.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

marina628 said:


> MY brother in law just had a duplex built about an hour outside Gander Newfoundland , both sides are 1200 sq ft 1.5 bathrooms ,for this he paid $215,000 in a town with under 2000 people living in it.You may not recall but when i joined 7 years ago I was very active in investment properties and even bought one unseen in Georgia through my friend for $40,000USD ,I still have it and get $800 a month for it .But I have spent alot of time on mls looking all over Canada even in Newfoundland and tough to find 'doors' at prices you are claiming.


Never said it was easy to find them, I said I was looking at 3 today, which I did. I only get to buy about 5 a year lately, that’s not even finding one in each province per year. That doesn’t seem to imply, considering the size of Canada, that they are common. Can’t say I ever looked in gander. I don’t do small towns. These aren’t new builds either, they were apartments. If I’m going to personally travel to see some places, it better be worthwhile, or at least give me a good vacation.

Besides, my success in finding places has nothing to do with your abilities to find places. My system, for example, doesn’t have me looking on mls, I get informed as soon as a property is entered into mls. Buying a place, sight unseen in a city you don’t know, doesn’t mean you have a system for finding properties, it means, to me at least, you were gambling. There are also properties available that aren’t on mls. Knowing other property owners can get you in on deals that amateurs can’t find.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I disagree James.

The BOC has expressed more concern over a growing debt bubble than meeting their inflation target.

They are fearful the threat of a debt/credit crisis is growing expotentially, as is the product of mathematics....the larger the debt the faster it grows.

The deep recession in the US was due to a credit crisis, driven by the unknown liability among banks that stemmed from Wall Street financial creations, also known as derivatives. 

Alan Greenspan said they were dumbfounded to watch the world credit system freeze up completely in a matter of minutes, so it can and did happen.

Low interest rates for savers has also driven retirees and other vulnerable people into risk laden equity markets, creating another huge bubble and potential crisis.

The assortment of "bubbles" can't continue to expand forever. One day.........one or more will "pop" and nobody knows what will happen.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

JAG's real estate scheme in three easy steps.

1) Find an owner who will sell for 30% less than their property is worth

2) Find a bank who will lend 30% more than you paid for the property.

3) Find a tenant who will pay the same rent to live in a $50K unit as they would to live in a $200K unit.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags I agree with all those risks. I just don't think the Bank of Canada really cares about the risks.

If they really feared the risk of growing debt loads, they wouldn't have kept lowering rates. They kept talking about risks of debt loads and danger to Canadians, while simultaneously lowering rates and fuelling the debt/housing bubble.

The other reason I don't think they care is that I attended a talk from by a couple representatives of the Bank of Canada back in 2007, around the time the US market started imploding. They said it was generally good for Canadians' finances if home prices remain strong. They talked a lot about home prices being of critical importance to household financial health and the economy. I got the impression that they intend to support home prices. And this was before the worst of the 2008 fallout. That crisis made it even more apparent that crashing home values (in the US) cause a broad deleveraging across the whole economy.

I think that if even in 2007 they were committing to propping up home prices, they are probably even more committed now after seeing the 2008-2009 reality that falling home prices (US & Europe) causes deleveraging that destroys banks and brings the economy to a halt.

More generally, I believe that central banks don't really care much about inflation. I think their primary motive (ever since Sir Alan Greenspan) is inflating asset prices or preventing deflation. It's true they don't want inflation to get out of control, but only because it puts an end to the game. On the balance of things, I think central banks always lean towards pumping prices higher.

I doubt that any central banker today would show the same commitment Volcker had towards stomping out inflation. These days, central banks are very fearful of triggering widespread deleveraging and runaway deflation. Remember, the banking system almost collapsed entirely just a decade ago. You think anyone wants to be responsible for that happening again?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

1) there are people who need to sell sometimes and are willing to sell for less. Or, in a market where nothing is selling and places are delisted several times because they failed to sell, are willing to take an offer. I’m also probably in the minority here who are willing to write a cheque for $100k to buy a property, no conditions on the contract. Hat gives me a bit of an edge, I don’t need banks, or months of time, I can close in a matter of minutes if I’m interested. 

2) the value of a property isn’t related to its selling price. As most of you comment, you can’t easily find a nice 1 bedroom for 50k so, when a bank sends out an appraiser, they find comparable properties are worth significantly more than I paid for them, thus they are appraised higher. 

3) you buy in a big city, in a neighbourhood where properties rent at a certain rate. $1000 is the average rent for a 1 bedroom in many parts of the country. 

Sags’ life scheme...

1) make things up, yell it loud enough and hope people believe you, even if is so obviously BS all the time. 

2) hold out your hand for handouts

3) spread FUD about thing they have no clue about.

P.S. if you have a 200k property renting for $1000/month chances are I’ll pick it up when it goes into foreclosure because it won’t cash flow. Investments like that are how people lose their shirts.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> Mortgages were locked into 5 year terms with a 25 year amortization. If you had to buy or renew your mortgage at 21%....tough luck for the next 5 years ...


Only if you don't do your home work or were betting the 20+% was going to stay a long time ... over the last twenty five years, one year mortgages as well as adjusting the amortization has been offered to me, whether I had meager assets or reasonable assets.

If five year terms were all that was available - it makes me wonder all the print and paper wasted on the "go one year or go five year" for the mortgage articles, never mind my brother in law insisting that shorter terms always averaged out to cheaper over time.





sags said:


> ... If BOC rates didn't affect mortgages, loans, credit cards, GICs.......nobody would care about the BOC rate.


Sure there is a relationship ... but if the BOC rate is at 10%, there won't be many mortgage lenders offering 21% mortgages. It will be those who locked in for a long term.


Cheers


*PS*
I seem to recall my relatives going with one or two year mortgages as they didn't expect the 20+% to last.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Eclectic12 said:


> Only if you don't do your home work or were betting the 20+% was going to stay a long time ... over the last twenty five years, one year mortgages as well as adjusting the amortization has been offered to me, whether I had meager assets or reasonable assets.
> 
> If five year terms were all that was available - it makes me wonder all the print and paper wasted on the "go one year or go five year" for the mortgage articles, never mind my brother in law insisting that shorter terms always averaged out to cheaper over time.
> 
> ...


In BC (and I suspect most Canadian common law jurisdictions) a 5-year or any other fixed-term mortgage can be paid off sans notice, bonus or penalty despite a mortgage term to the contrary if the lender calls the loan. Repayment under a demand by the lender is not, in law, a prepayment triggering the right to 3 or 6 months’ bonus interest, or whatever. 

Resort to the foregoing device is how I got out of my 5-year 23.99% mortgage after rates dropped sufficiently to make it worthwhile. I simply stopped making payments. I did not have to wait long before I received a letter telling me I was in default, that I had triggered the mortgage acceleration clause and payment in full was hereby demanded or face foreclosure, or death by firing squad. Time for my happy dance! Thank you mortgagee, you just saved me 3 months’ interest!

I hear some saying that the use of above ploy will blacken one’s credit reputation and forever be a blot on the landscape, a scarlet letter on one’s forehead. No so for those with a history of otherwise stellar credit. I know in my case it passed unnoticed. Never heard a word about it from any other credit-granting institution. For those operating on the fringe, it might be a resounding death knell; a sign of a credit report besmirched for all eternity.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In 1973 mortgage rates in Canada were over 9% and continued to climb until 1981 when they peaked at over 21% before they started to decline.

People signing short term mortgages were impacted the worst. In the face of rising interest rates, variable and short term mortgages don't work out well.

On the other side of the coin, people who had CSBs or GICs enjoyed high interest rates on their locked in certificates for many years.

I remember that for a long time the rule of thumb was that savings would double every 7 years.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We sold a couple of homes where the buyers assumed our mortgage because although it was high interest a new mortgage would have been even higher.

The bank "blended" the mortgage with current rates. We saved some of the costs of paying off the mortgage and the buyers got a slightly lower interest rate.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> In 1973 mortgage rates in Canada were over 9% and continued to climb until 1981 when they peaked at over 21% before they started to decline ...


Looking at these two average five year mortgage rate charts, it's more like rise then drop then rise (I count three drops before the over 21% peak).
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rea...rned-from-80s-interest-rates/article24398735/
https://www.ratehub.ca/5-year-fixed-mortgage-rate-history

Where one signed up for a five year mortgage at the peak, the renewal was around 12%. Over 15% lasted for about two years, plus the quick blip in early 1980. 




sags said:


> ... On the other side of the coin, people who had CSBs or GICs enjoyed high interest rates on their locked in certificates for many years.


CSBs ... certainly. 

GICs weren't necessarily as smooth with '81 and '89 were the only years in that decade where no financial institutions failed. Most were trust or mortgage companies. '83 and '85 are tied with seven companies failing. Being more paper based back then, getting one's money out of CDIC probably was not quick.


Cheers


----------

