Business plan or propaganda?
posted at 11:11 am on December 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Evan Newmark has seen the latest business plan from GM, a requirement for their bailout request, and he’s confused. The Wall Street Journal columnist knows this is a business plan because that’s what GM calls it, but it’s missing a few details … like how they intend to turn a profit. This entry would flunk BusMgmt 101, and not just for ignoring the bottom line (via Michelle):
But the restructuring plan comes up short on the most fundamental question. Will this company actually make money? Just look at the details — or what details are lacking.
GM says it plans to focus on only four brands. So why does the number of models only drop from 48 to 40?
GM has 6,600 dealers, which it says it will cut to 4,700 by 2012. Honda has 1,300 dealers. Even Ford has only 4,100 — which it will cut further.
And nowhere in the document does GM lay out, year by year, its own projected market share. This is perhaps the most critical part of any business plan. The kind of thing you learn in the first day of business school.
Turn to Exhibit B-1 — and you find something interesting. It is only in an appendix entry — and not stated explicitly. GM appears to have changed its market share assumption for 2009 GM U.S. volume from 20.6% a year ago to 22.5% today.
In this environment, it seems strange that GM is actually increasing its market share assumptions. And car business is all about volumes.
Newmark notes that the big problem is credit — and not just the financial collapse that makes it hard to loan money. GMAC boosted car sales for years by making marginal loans, and now they can’t do that, thanks to their own heavy debt load. They’ve gone from funding half of all their car sales to only 6% of them. That’s an awful lot of unsold cars, and it strongly suggests that GM had to subsidize its own car sales just to put up the numbers it did in the past few years.
In a way, that’s a bigger indictment of GM than its balance sheet. They would have done better to fix their internal problems and produce better cars at lower prices than to eat the cost of money on their loans in order to get cars out the door. It doesn’t look like they’ve learned that lesson yet.
Instead of actually addressing those problems, GM instead makes appeals to patriotism as an excuse for its panhandling. That used to be known as the last refuge of scoundrels. Now it’s the last argument for corporate beggars.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Ford seems to be the only corporation to come to the table for a real plan for the future. I think they should be rewarded for that and receive the lionshare of federal funds. GM probably should be allowed to fail as there is no plan for future profit or for innovation. And frankly, this is what Japan and Germany do. They support technological innovation. And I think it makes sense to reward those who are thinking towards the future that’s “support” not “bailing out” Screw GM.
DeathToMediaHacks on December 3, 2008 at 11:13 AM
As I have said before.
Simple, to the point and makes a statement to all!
upinak on December 3, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I thought this was about bailing out Detroit, the city, and the unions. What does this bailout have to do with GM?
JiangxiDad on December 3, 2008 at 11:14 AM
toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, all have internal financing to buy a car as well…
GMs biggest problem is that it runs its different brands as sseperate companies… what it needs to do is consolidate into less Brands, less business units, and less models.
Or, in other words, they need to stop competing with THEMSELVES.
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I talked to a friend of mine who is a congressional staffer focusing on this issue for his boss. He simplified it down for me:
http://thirdbasepolitics.blogspot.com/2008/12/screw-it-im-keeping-my-hyundai.html
DJ Tablesauce on December 3, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I will not buy any product made with union labor, so I could care less what GM, Ford or Chrysler does.
As long as the UAW is involved, I have no interest in American cars – period.
NoDonkey on December 3, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Wagoner is a dips***. He doesn’t know how to run a company, and never has. Notice how Mulally from Ford does not need the money, but wants it just in case. GM deserves every bit as much pain as it’s going to get.
IR-MN on December 3, 2008 at 11:19 AM
The only way the Detroit Three will emerge as a viable company is through bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, they can still continue to make and sell cars while they restructure thier business. In this restructuring, everyone will have to take a haircut to make the reorganization plan work: the executives, the unions, the car dealers, the vendors, etc. Bankruptcy will force the company to get serious about re-tooling into a competitive business model: it will also require them to submit a real business plan to the courts, as opposed to the political business plan to the politicians. Listen to Romney: bankruptcy is the only answer.
RedSoxNation on December 3, 2008 at 11:21 AM
GM seems like they’re trying to blackmail people into giving them money. I don’t think they or the unions have done enough on their own and they oughta fail if they can’t run their company right.
CP on December 3, 2008 at 11:22 AM
“like how they intend to turn a profit.”
Remember the “Underpants Gnomes” episode of South Park?
exhelodrvr on December 3, 2008 at 11:23 AM
LET THEM AND THE UAW DIE…..they have picked at all of our carcasses for years and enjoyed unimaginable wealth for putting a bolt on a wheel….
To quote a great pastor “General Motors chickens have come home to roost”
SDarchitect on December 3, 2008 at 11:25 AM
OK folks. Ed, you are starting to be brainwashed by liberals. Your analysis above is pure jibberish.
Let’s leave our good capitalist system alone.
Any car company would have been caught with their pants down with the double whammy of $4 gas and a massive credit crunch.
Let’s not follow the greedy, capitalists are evil trail.
faraway on December 3, 2008 at 11:28 AM
I agree. I went to the new car show this past weekend and looked at some of the smaller SUV’s made by Buick, Chevy, Pontiac, GMC, Saturn. Except for some appearance items and the front and rear fascias….they’re the exact same vehicles just with different nameplates.
AZ_Mike on December 3, 2008 at 11:28 AM
OK, so they have a BP
Send them back to Detroit and implement the plan with the money they got.
I still won’t buy any of their products
Kini on December 3, 2008 at 11:28 AM
This debacle has a thousand fathers. Not the least of which is that government to a large extent caused this in the first place and of course the support of government for unions. That and there is no real economic patriotism left in this country.
I am not for a bailout, but I wish the folks that are now decrying it with passion would have been just as passionate about opposing the policies that caused this problem in the first place. It is all to easy to say “let them fail” but when these things start happening in your business or community you may change your tune.
echosyst on December 3, 2008 at 11:32 AM
It’s all about uaw , some jobs or no jobs.
the_nile on December 3, 2008 at 11:32 AM
It is about the UAW yes, but Detroit and the big 3 are the canary in the mine. There are plenty of other manufacturing firms set to fall in this country, it ain’t just a Detroit problem anymore.
echosyst on December 3, 2008 at 11:33 AM
In this case, there’s a difference?
rvastar on December 3, 2008 at 11:35 AM
With GM’s fixed costs, labor and benefits, profits are out of the question
Best move for GM and Ford is to move to China or South America, sell cars to the rest of the world. Shiipping costs are a whole lot less than their current retirement costs.
Question, how many thought the big three retirement plans were sustainable by private enterprise companies?
tarpon on December 3, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Step 1. Get Bail-out money
Step 2 ???
Step 3. Profit!!!!!!!!
DaveC on December 3, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I didn’t see you there before I made my post..
DaveC on December 3, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I have one question.
These “plans” are what they would do WITH a government bailout….what will they do (or not do) WITHOUT a government bailout?
subbottomfeeder on December 3, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Build a product people want to buy. I myself drive a Honda, but only because they are made right here in Indiana.
Tommy_G on December 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Those of you that are not self-employed take note. The prescription you have for GM is the same equation your employer could make about you. We can all be replaced. You could make a case that were are ALL overpaid if we are going to use China as the measure. Wait until this crap hits you and then you can talk.
echosyst on December 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM
How to solve the auto industry? How do you get someone off of drugs? Cold turkey.
Actually, since commenting is all about appearing to have something worth saying, I suggest:
Diversification. There are other products to be manufactured.
When ‘big tobacco’ looked like it was going to be threatened, big tobacco hid in plain sight by diversifying, investing/becoming intertwined with many non-tobacco industries.
The auto makers are becoming victims of planned obsolescence, which is quite humorous. To survive, they need to diversify and begin looking for other manufacturing possibilities. Those other options would be free from UAW threats. If Dearborn workers were given the choice of a plant closing or remaining open…but to work there, they must leave the UAW and build, for a fair wage, tractors or construction equipment or whatever…I think that Dearborn would drop the UAW.
Without the governmental restrictions/taxes as to how an automobile must be built, the (auto)manufacturers could build products at a reasonable cost and make a profit.
The UAW are not the only villains here, but they do their share.
Rather than cut cut cut away at levels of bureaucracy, I suggest they spin off some of those levels to manufacture the other products. Am I crazy or what?
Doug on December 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I’m a little confused………………
………. I can’t swing a dead cat, let alone turn on the TV or listen to the radio, without seeing or hearing a commercial for a car company, with
ESPECIALLY on the weekends during any football game!
Maybe the networks are giving away free airtime as part of the bailout, but the way the 2009 models are being marketed, they sure don’t look like they need a bailout…….
Seven Percent Solution on December 3, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Understand what’s driving this, please
GM’s problem isn’t that it can’t make money or good vehicles. In reality today’s GM quality is not far behind Ford’s and ahead of Toyota’s. Unfortunately, people don’t want to know this…
Ask any Chev dealer selling the co-produced Toyota vehicles (cars that become toyotas, or chevy’s when they put the name plate on.) The chevs come back with quality complaints, the toyota’s don’t. And yet.. they’re the same car.
This is symptomatic of the real problem: the buying public thinks that japanese cars (many now made in the U.S.) are better, smaller, cheaper -and while this isn’t actually true, it becomes so when the markeplace consigns the former big three to building SUVs and larger vehicles simply because they imagine that a Toyota is better than a chev when in reality they’re the same car made in the same plant, by the same people, using the same parts.
Given this market reality: Detroit can make, but not sell small cars, congressional action to force them to make small cars is the same as congressional action to put them out of business. Thus CAFE (1) put the groundwork in place for today’s problems – and CAFE (2) triggered them.
That’s why GM’s plan isn’t a plan – it’s a duck and weave because nobody wants to bell the cat bearing the checkbook. It’s also why Ford looks ok: they sell the small stuff overseas, and why Chrysler’s bet on low oil prices is likely to be th ekey to their survival.
So what should these guys do? Face up to the democrats and point out that they’re the cancer killing these companies – and when the democrats do nothing, go ahead and file for chapter 11 protection but make it very clear who’s really to blame.
Paul Murphy on December 3, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Here’s what the bailout is being used for…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_06mSZLhEhY&eurl=&feature=player_embedded
Watch with an airbag handy.
UnderstandingisPower on December 3, 2008 at 11:48 AM
That’s because they know they are getting the money and it’s only the amount of begging they have to do. The dems will not allow the UAW to suffer in any way. A little unemployment and business as usual.
thomasaur on December 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I agree.
…which surprises me.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Step 1. Get Bail-out MOney
Step 2. A MIRACLE occures here!
Step 3. Profit!!!!!!!
That reads better. I’d like a little more detail on Step 2, please.
BTW, Fritz Henderson said bankruptcy would erode buyers’ confidence in GM.
Uh, Fritz? Why do you think your cars aren’t selling now?
karl9000 on December 3, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Here’s a thought… stop charging $36,000 for a car that cost $12,000 to make!
FlatFoot on December 3, 2008 at 11:56 AM
There it is.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2008 at 11:56 AM
GM needs to go into Chapter 11. The pompous geniuses running that place still think its the 50’s. scroom.
Chrysler has Jeep like Studebaker had STP in 1960. And just like then, the company around that one brand-name, is nothing but an empty shell.
billypaintbrush on December 3, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Fixed it for ya…
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Let GM go down. Help Ford but with a minimal amount. The others let them file Chapter 11! Kill the Unions. Then start over with out them.
sheebe on December 3, 2008 at 12:03 PM
The American Automobile Companies are just going to have to adjust to the economy the way the rest of us are already doing.
I have had relatives in the automobile industry, one as a now former Ford Dealer, one in sales and one as wholesale used car dealer. Since the 1980’s, it has been common knowledge that new car sales has never been the money making part of the industry. The money was in finance and used cars. Dealerships have taken loses on new cars since the ’80s only to make their profit on the loans and service contracts. Their biggest profit is in the used car side of the dealership, and is what has kept the doors open during all the ups and downs in the economy.
It’s pretty obvious that American Car Companies have flooded the market with dealerships and they have produced way too many models. In all that I hear about solutions to ‘fix’ this problem, I don’t hear much about cutting back on models or letting some of the poorly profitable dealerships go. These dealerships who don’t produce could easily reinvent themselves as used car dealerships, which would make sense in today’s market.
I don’t need to point out the obvious that the unions are another big problem. If the Big Three really care about saving all those jobs, they need to make concessions in respect to the unions. All these scare tactics about millions of jobs being lost if they go down is a farce. Let the unions bosses lose their jobs and a bigger part of the problem will be solved. This would play a big part in making American Cars more competitive, buy cutting all the excesses piled on by union benefits. I’m sure there are plenty of folks who would love a job right now at half of what the assembly-line employees make.
jcheney on December 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM
You are aware that their are foreign nameplates building cars in the U.S. and doing ok, right? The Big 3 are kind of like terminal cancer patients, and the current economic crisis is the cold that may just knock them off. Their healthier competition will get the sniffles, then come back strong and take their market share.
cs89 on December 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I’d like to see some proof of this. I live in a town where there is a nissan plant. They make three or four models of cars–none of which are licensed to GM. We also have a Saturn plant nearby–all the cars made there are…Saturns. I have friends who work in both plants.
The only thing I’ve found concerning GM/Toyota being the same car, was the Prizm and the Corolla using the same drive train (from the early 1990’s)
My wife’s Scion xB was made and shipped from Japan. My Oldsmobile was not made by a Japanese car maker.
robblefarian on December 3, 2008 at 12:07 PM
You should add – NOT Pelosi’s spewing about “bankruptcy in not an option”. If the ‘Big 3′ enter Ch.11 the UAW’s strangle hold on the US Auto Industry will be broken.
Remember, Pelosi and the DemCong don’t take “special interest” money, just union money.
belad on December 3, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Oh yeah. When it comes to production, it’s all about “Globalism”, but when it comes to Gumint handouts they are all of a sudden Red White and Blue all over. Bastards. Let’ em hang!
ronsfi on December 3, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Pelosi has said bankruptcy is not an option, so that means Cong. will give the big 3 the money. And since Paulson has already spent most of the original bailout money, we’ll just have to print more.
Doesn’t anyone in Washington see what this will do to our childrens’ futures?
kelley in virginia on December 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM
I wonder if this “business plan” is acceptable to Pelosi, Reid, and Frank.
My expectation is that it will be good enough for them, and they’ll be more than happy to write a big check for the big three.
It’s no wonder that these losers can only survive by seeking lifelong political careers. They would never make it in the private sector.
UltimateBob on December 3, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Let me guess…you were excited about passing the bailout in October, weren’t you?
Sounds like Ed isn’t the one being brainwashed.
fiscallyconservative on December 3, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Not really; market share is only a measure of competitive advantage. Car companies can (and have) been profitable with a fraction of GM’s market current share.
What all business depends on is PROFIT. If you have a large enough volume, it’s possible to get by on a low marginal profit. (I.e., profit per car sold.) Unfortunately, it has never been and it never will be possible for a company to survive if it has a NEGATIVE marginal profit.
As I understand it, GM is losing over a thousand dollars on each new car sold. It’s perfectly understandable why their business model would leave out details like that. When your production expenses are too high, increasing your volume just means increasing your losses.
logis on December 3, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Huh? The problem isn’t that they’re greedy capitalists, it’s that they’re not. They’re (a) not greedy enough to come up with a plan to turn a profit and (b) not capitalists since they’re after government money instead of profits made by providing a competitive product.
Oathkeeper216 on December 3, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Anyone wanna bet the new “plans” funnel large “contributions” back to our idiot congress?
sabbott on December 3, 2008 at 12:47 PM
GM set up their business that way decades ago, when they held such a huge market share that they had no real competition so they really did have to create their own. The world has changed an incredible amount since then. But GM doesn’t want to change to meet the current reality.
Of course that’s always easier to SAY than to DO. Corporate inertia is a very real thing, and it’s difficult to overcome under the best of circumstances.
And right now, corporations have no reason on earth to even consider such painful decisions. All the big companies have basically dropped everything to work on positioning themselves like baby birds waiting for the government to regurgitate their dinner. And all the small companies are trying to merge together so they can do what all the big companies are doing.
In other words, all the old rules of business are now being overwritten by the rules of Socialism: The choice is to either tap into the supply of tax money, or get tapped to support the business who do.
logis on December 3, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Only one I’m presently aware of is the Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe. Any others? Obviously there are Ford/Mazda siblings like the Escape/Tribute, too.
I love the look and the quality of the new Malibu (the hybrid is a cruel joke, though). I drove a rental Impala LTZ recently and thought fit and finish were on par with e.g. a Toyota Avalon.
All considered, I’ll still stick with my Civic.
DrSteve on December 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Paul Murphy @ 11:46 AM
Outstanding analysis!
I started working in the assembly plant for Chrysler in 1973 and got laid off in 1979. Even though I could have taken a year off at 95% of my pay (idiot?) I did not want that uncertanty hanging over my head so I started my own business.
I would have retired from Chrysler in 2003 with 30 years in but where would my pension be now?
Vince on December 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM
These companies have been operating with two, bloated executive bureaucracies at the same time – the manufacturer, and the union. For all of the union schmucks who whine about the screwing that they are about to get (and yes, they are going to get slaughtered), they need to go back and look at the money that the employees have spent over the past 30 years on the union.
Remember, you socialist jerks – Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan, none of them spent a penny on these gangsters. Think that makes a difference in their cost basis?
The unions have killed the golden goose – let them die now.
Jaibones on December 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Call a spade a spade. Like it or not, most of the work performed by these UAW members should be classified as unskilled. And you can’t pay unskilled labor skilled wages for long without this current condition happening. Honda and Toyota’s only cost differences are labor and pensions (plus they seem to build cars that people actually want). If our esteemed leaders on Capital Hill understood this, they would let the Big 3 go bankrupt tomorrow.
BierManVA on December 3, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Obama, Pelosi, Reid: we need to protect the union mobsters.
There it is.
Jaibones on December 3, 2008 at 1:28 PM
So this is what has become of government. One failing company had the sense to at least write up a decent business plan so they should be saved?
I haven’t seen anything related to how the union factors into any of these plans and how they are going to assist in bringing down the cost per car they inflict on these companies.
Any GOP Senator or Representative that votes for this should be removed from office at the next possible opportunity.
grdred944 on December 3, 2008 at 2:14 PM
karl9000 — I, too, am a fan of Sidney Harris.
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
cheeflo on December 3, 2008 at 2:14 PM
NOT HERE AT HONDA…
only down 10%
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on December 3, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Rubbish, they have been making crap cars for a long time and running on cheap finance backed up by dodgy derivatives.
GM and Co. simply cannot compete and they should either restructure or die.
Ares on December 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Some of you folks are like sheep. You listen to the NY media tell you that our American companies are evil. (Marxism?)
Stand up for GM, Ford and Chrysler. (That doesn’t mean we have to “bail them out”, though)
I am very skeptical of posters here that slam American companies.
faraway on December 3, 2008 at 3:18 PM
So, you base your ideas on Ed’s ridiculous premise that GM, with it’s hundreds of financial analysts, doesn’t know how to write a business plan?
faraway on December 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Over fifty years ago, then-General Motors President Charles Wilson supposedly said, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”
Do I get a bailout too?
Special Forces Grunt on December 3, 2008 at 4:01 PM
So, let’s review. The big three want money so they can build cars no one really wants so they can sell them to customers with good credit who can’t get approved. By the time these cars get to the market, we will all be suffering from the obama recession, the dealers will be standing longinly in the showroom wondering where are the customers? I don’t want to buy a small battery powered car for $40000 that gets 40mph. I have a $20000 truck thats big and safe and when I stomp the pedal it goes and still gets 20 mph. I will not spend 20k for something i don’t like.
gringo69 on December 3, 2008 at 6:41 PM
First off. I do not want them to get the bail out. I don’t want any company to get a bailout. When did we start rewarding fail?
Now, I have been following GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, and just about any other automaker you can think of for years now. From what I have read on this thread so far has ranged from fairly well informed to totally absurd. Let me give my thoughts on how and why GM has got itself into the situation it is currently in.
Strap in boys and girls.
General Motors problems began during the first gas crunch. That situation was almost a vanguard for the looming problem that would come to a head in the coming decades.
Just about every auto maker was ill prepared for it, some did better than others, Toyota and Honda for two. Now before I go any further let me remind everyone that imports tend to be more efficient because their market demands them to be. Toyota did not build the Corolla solely for the American market back then. They just brought what they were already making over here and “tweaked” it a bit for US tastes and standards, much the same way they do now. Take the Camry for example, it started out smaller than a Cavalier, now its as large as a Malibu. This should have been more of an eye opener for GM, but sadly it wasn’t. Once the gas came back on everyone just went back to work as if nothing happened. Mistake number one.
Now don’t think GM just blew it off like it was nothing. They were going to operate in typical GM fashion and just BUY an import company, why not right? They were making a boatload of money and had a huge share of the market. And they were actually planning on picking up Toyota back in the 80’s, woops.
So they limped along after the crisis, hurt, but still huge. Then Roger Smith, the wiz, took over the company. THIS is where the problems really started to boil.
Smith was probably the worst thing that could have happened to GM. He thought that it wasn’t GM’s cars that were the problem, but that the marketing was bad… Yeah. GM still had that old boys mentality and the union was still a million strong beast. They still felt they had a handle on things and that people would buy whatever they made, regardless of quality. Smith was also the man who really started the whole “badge engineering” craze. Actually, there are too many mistakes to list here. But one of his largest was how he handled the union contracts. He set the contracts to assume that GM will be constantly growing, which one can assume to be right (GM nearly had 60% of the market at one point in their history). But, due to his great leadership GM entered a spiral that they never really pulled out of. Because of this the UAW now has free health care, 85% of their pay even when they are laid off, and over 50k a year with a high school diploma. I toured a plant with my boss a few years ago. We watched a line worker spit, literally spit, into a managers face and say “you aint gon do nothing about it”. They said he was “fired” but we saw him coming back into work the next day on our way into a meeting. Is it all like that? No. But this is the attitude that has grown in the UAW. Its less about protecting the worker and more about sticking it to the management and getting their own. Sad really.
GM is, and will always be in a very bad position, if they give too much to the worker then they are just bad businessmen. If they are skinflints then they don’t care about anything but their bonuses.
Let me sum it up:
1. GM is being bled dry by the UAW and an inflexible overhead cost structure. Pensions, PPE,and materials are breaking them
2. If GM goes, it will take at least 1 in 12 jobs with them. All their suppliers, will go with them. The current auto market will not pick up that slack. Even at its best I have my doubts if it could.
3. Roger Smith put the snowball in motion, and now Wagoner has to try and stop it. Good luck. He ran the company into the ground.
4. There is a HUGE, HUGE, perception gap regarding domestics and imports. Tell me the difference between a Chevy Prism and a Corolla. I will give you a hint. The badge. And their quality is equal to Toyota. Go look.
5. If you want to see where the country is going, look at GM. This is why I worry.
Gatsu on December 3, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Comment pages: