So who will but Oxford Finance, Geneva ?
So who will but Oxford Finance, Geneva ?
Maybe HGH would buy Oxford Finance,,and then Turners' MTF shares, before making a full takeover for them [MTF] too.!
We must remember TRA buying their blocking stake in MTF,stopped any takeover of MTF a few years ago.
MTF would still make a good fit with HGH's Marac.
Heaps more I hope because today it is an amalgamation of several businesses -
On 1 May 2018, Dorchester Oxford Limited, Oxford Finance Limited, Southern Finance Limited and Dorchester Finance Limited were amalgamated to become Dorchester Finance Limited which changes its name on amalgamation to Oxford Finance Limited.
It strikes me as really odd that for as far back as I can remember management and the directors have been singing the praises of an integrated sales / finance / insurance and more lately service model. What we appear to have here is an admission this doesn't work and / or is too capital intensive and Baker et al want some of their capital back in a trade sale of the finance and insurance divisions. Basically this is capitulation on a plan they've been working on for years and they want to get back to absolute basics.
HGH might finally get the acquisition they've been talking about for all these years.
Well the annoucement was both good and interesting (not bad... interesting)
I agree, for a good chunk of time the 'one stop shop' model was touted quite extensively, and they seemed to have followed our government of the past 18 months and have done a very sharp u-turn on what was once pushed for so hard - this is the interesting part of this mornings announcement. I personally never thought EC Credit fit that well, so this was less of a surprise.
The good part was the (now?) core business (cars and car insurance) performed well in FY18... having a quick look at the top and bottom line it seems this core business is solid...
AUTOMOTIVE RETAIL
FY17: Revenue $192.7m, Operating Profit $15.4m
FY18: Revenue $223.2m, Operating Profit $16.6m
FY19: Revenue $225.7m, Operating Profit $18.3m
INSURANCE
FY17: Revenue $13.7m, Operating Profit $0.9m
FY18: Revenue $46.9m, Operating Profit $5.7m
FY19: Revenue $48.5m, Operating Profit $8.2m
Say in FY20 we have a 'bad' year, and there is no operating profit growth in either division - even ignoring the other divisions (Finance and EC Credit) Turners is at a PE of 8.0 (before tax)
No guidance provided which was to be expected when a couple of arms of the business are under review (and may, or may not, be part of the future turners)
And the presentation didn't seem to have quite as much good vibe and lots of pretty pictures that FY18 of FY17 had...
Is that a sign of the times? I don't know
$18.3m divisional profit before tax = $13.2m after tax = approx. 15 cps earnings. Not sure where you get a PE of 8.
From where I sit the vehicle division is worth something like $1.50 per share (PE 10 which is line ball with CMO) so I guess its a question of whether the finance and insurance deivisions are worth more than $1 per share.
Overdue debt in the credit division is up from 1.6% to 2.0% of lending which is getting right up there and the non recourse lending overdue has blown out to a whopping 14.4%, that's an absolute shocker...last time I looked at the interim report it was under (9% from memory).
I suspect when the risk ruler is run over TRA's loan book in a truly independent arms length way in tandem with thorough due diligence, (remember the auditors do minimal sampling and are not truly independent because the company pays their fees and provisioning of doubtful loans involves a vast amount of estimation by the company itself), TRA may find indicative bids for their finance division are well short of their expectations.
Oxford Finance is a substantial business the worth of which is as yet untested.
EC Credit is a reasonable business the worth of which will be interesting.
Turners' MTF blocking stake shares are worth substantially more than they paid for them.Seem to remember TRA are MTF's largest shareholder.
The directors ,however feel that the capital from the above businesses can be recycled and produce better earnings developing and running more, and better located Turners sites.
Perhaps they will be proved right,which should make Turners a very interesting and rewarding investment for all shareholders,and not just for the directors, who have large shareholdings.
5 cps fully imputed divie payable 18th July.
T_j — those sums you did above re you need to deduct Corporate Costs
These were $14.9m in F19. I would say a lot would remain so even without Finance and Collections they would be quite high ......and then I would hazard a guess that implementing a lot of the stuff they talk about is quite expensive and would offset any ‘savings’
So let’s say Cars and Insurance Operating Profit $26.5 as per your post ...let’s take off say $10m corporate costs (and that contradicts what I said above) which gives $16m before tax and after tax and at best $12m after tax ....or 14 cents a share.
All conjecture eh and goodness knows what’ll happen but I have a feeling it won’t be that good for shareholders.
Might be a brilliant strategic move and we’ll all be rich as ...one day
Next full moon 17th June.
In 2014, Dorchester paid around $12m for Oxford, for $3m of earnings before interest and tax. Operating profit is now 11.2m. So at the same multiple, the finance division should be worth at least $45m and I would hope more like $60-70m. Its now a larger, more diversified business and prices should have increased since 2014. That's almost a third of Turner's current market cap.
From the presentation: “Whatever the outcome of the strategic review, Turners will continue to maintain its close relationship with Oxford Finance through its expanding distribution platform..."
I suppose they could create a contractual relationship with Oxford before selling it. Perhaps they view the investment in Finance companies a bit like their property investments - capital intensive in the short term, but providing an opportunity for both capital gain and ongoing synergies in the long-term because they provide a guaranteed revenue stream...
Good to see the market appears to like what Turners said yesterday
Onwards and upwards for the share price from here I reckon.
Yeah, NAH. There's so many other things to worry about in life...I'll leave you to watch the moon cycles.
You know me, I bark whenever I feel like it whatever the state of the moon :p
Market's given the TRA result the big ho-hum which is not surprising.
I do note despite TRA's regular assurance that they've been targeting better quality new lending their overdue debtors have blown out quite considerably, (especially very badly for non recourse MTF sourced lending as predicted by some hound on here many months ago) which really tells me they don't have as good a credit handle on their operation as they would lead us to believe so probably it is best for shareholders if they do sell it.
I would expect HGH or any other interested parties who might conduct really thorough due diligence in due course will find plenty of fish hooks in their receivables ledger not previously encapsulated by TRA's "robust" provisioning model so real adjusted earnings will probably be considerably lower than what's stated in TRA's most recent financials with consequent effect upon the sale price.
They say Finance and collections services worth a bit over $150m... (before corporate costs are accounted for), still quite a bit given market cap of turners only $211m
TRA continues to trade below NTA ($2.58), below an analysts target price ($2.59), and way below where management reckon its worth ($3 'worst case')
Has to go up eventually one would think?
I seem to remember you bagging HGH for Dairy loans.
Share milker loans were going to break HGH.You were joined by other great baggers.
Also you remember you bagging HGH for no deposit lending.Esp Holden.
Turners own loans are not the problem.The problem was/is the MTF non-recourse loans.These loans were stopped over a year ago,so it is the tail which continues to be the problem.
The increase in new loan impairments for both HGH and TRA are mainly new accounting rules.In fact no actual change in impairments,[or very little.]
A lot of bagging.
I guess if you howl enough you may get one right,.!
However remember Oxford Finance is now a very substantial business writting good loans.
Also EC Credit is an excellent business.
Also remember Turners' strategic holding of MTF is the key to unlocking MTF. Worth twice [or more] the price TRA paid.
Report says Finance segment assets $271m and liabilities $217m which sort of suggests a book value of $54m
The failed sales of UDC was at 1.6 times book value. Heartland currently trades at 1.5 times book value
Does that suggest Turners Finance might be worth $80m odd?
But some say the quality of the loan book is a bit dodgy ...discount to this figure
In reality I have no idea.
HGH materially underperformed the market for 2 years over the period I was out and Dairy was problematic so I got that right.
Turners own loans are a bit of a problem, overdue loans, (excluding non recourse MTF) are now 2% up from 1.6% in the pcp which indicates to me that despite their multiple attempts to write better quality loans, the delinquency rate continues to rise. Perhaps they should hand over recovery proceedings to a more experienced credit control company ? Non recourse lending is a real mess with over 14% of loans overdue up from about 9% IIRC at the last period, (recall I predicted this problem would get worse),. so I got that right too.
You have waxed lyrical about their integrated full service business model generating huge growth in the years ahead and now it seems even the directors and management don't see it your way. Your persistent glowing positivity about this company against a recent clear downtrend has cost some people I know, that listened to you, tens of thousands of dollars.
There are plenty of problems in their loan book and it will be reflected in the sale price of their loan book, mark my words.
The used car business in N.Z. is a very very tough industry with few barriers to entry. It always will be a tough industry in my opinion.
$70m is my estimate as noted above, less if any buyer finds the real adjusted and properly provisioned profitability is less than $10m per annum and less for the non recourse MTF loans which quite probably are unsellable. Maybe book value of $54m isn't far off the real money in this tough market ?
I reckon that they (Baker and his mates) have wanted out (ie get their cash out) for some time.
They touted the total business throughout Australia and Asia and couldn’t find a buyer. Even that new Singapore Director who appeared well connected failed to find a buyer.
So Plan B is to sell it off part by part - starting with finance arm and the collection business. More attractive these bits without having a retail used car yard business attached.
Will the insurance arm be next to go?
That leaves a used car business ....maybe they will have to face up to living with that as that might be impossible to hock off.
Interesting times ahead
Insurance and end of vehicle life logistics will remain.
Insurance [Autosure] is tracking well, and their "capital reserves" will be used to fund property developments including site relocations.Makes sense and has been very profitable,and with a target of 7 new sites should remain very profitable.
Yes interesting times ahead,and until any sale has happened, we just don't know how interesting.
If TRA sell off the silver, is not the proceeds trapped within the remaining company, hence what happens to those proceeds given the assets are gone and no future earnings from them will accrue to the company. Surely they will have to distribute the proceeds to shareholders, there's only so much scope to grow the remaining assets? Who stands to make a gain from that, oh of course the cornerstone shareholders.
Anyway, I'm disappointed that the silverware is being sold off. I think Winner might be onto it, this is the next fling at an exit strategy, not the continuation of a growth strategy. The business model looked sound until these results, but now it doesn't and it has unanswered questions hanging over it.
Thank goodness I didn't buy the down trend, and now it's gone from my watchlist as well. What a dog it's been, a capital destruction machine and now a strategy to get smaller rather than better.
Yes a very ugly pig dog. Thankfully with careful risk management I have escaped with a very small 3 figure overall loss but the loss of time is far more valuable. Don't care about management's expansion plans as I know the second hand car industry is ultra competitive and probably always will be so the chances of outperformance on capital employed is very, very slim in my opinion. Some will hold for the dividend but should probably ask themselves how that's worked out for them so far ?
Last year the directors who could be bothered turning up told the meeting that the substantial increase in directors fees was because of the complexity of the business including the insurance division. So a slimmed down business model in due course means lower directors fees right ? Yeah right !
Your valuations are "Ball park" with broker's rearch I have read.
I would expect any buyer of Oxford Finance would request TRA sell their MTF shareholding.TRA are MTF largest shareholder.So the proceeds from the sale of these shares would go on top of the $150 mil you quote.
So the nett proceeds, recycled into expanding the retained silverware should make for interesting times.
Those of us who have followed the market for a long time, know companies that have sold parts of their business that are no longer core,and have recycled the funds into their core business, have done very well.Business more focussed.A recent example has been Scales, selling their low margin coolstores,and recycling those funds into higher margin petfood.
The core parts of Turners are still centred around the extremely valuable trusted brand "Turners."
Mmh - so first it was this one stop strategy which made them so attractive. They even increased their board fees for having to do all this hard work. They succeeded to increase their feed, but failed to do the work.
Strategy dropped by the board like a hot potato ... too hard, apparently - or just too busy to consume their increased fees, can't do the additional work as well?
But hey - now it is the simplicity of their business proposition which makes them so attractive. Why didn't we see that from the very beginning - complexity is bad .. only a simple used car yard is what makes the money. Unloved old car in - preloved new car out - only one ticket to clip. Rinse and repeat. Easy. What a bunch of geniuses!
But - are we sure the emperor is wearing any clothes?
Hey percy, you must be a bit gutted that the Turners integrated automotive financial services model with all its ticket clipping attributes is deemed to be broken. I recall you often told the doubters ‘ask yourself my Dorchester acquired Turners’
However I admire your ongoing support for and belief in Turners. No doubt you will often remind us that ‘the capital released from the (dud) businesses can be recycled and produce better earnings developing and running more, and better locations for Turners’ strategic approach is a wonderful shift in thinking.
I have my doubts. But all I can say I feel a little vindicated in that the numerous times I’ve said Turners weren’t generating enough profit to cover their cost of capital has turned out to be the case.
We’ll have to see what the future brings eh
I note they increased finance impairments by $3m as result of accounting changes and just adjusted the F18 retained earnings number ...... so no impact on this year’s profit
But the big question has to be whether the dividends will be maintained over the next 4 years.They are still loaded up with considerable debt,and what happens when a company decides to reduce debt?Just bear in mind that projected divvies might not be maintained.
Making acceptable returns on capital seems to be driver of hinting at quitting finance and insurance and retaining insurance and auto.
Looking at the segment numbers in the full year announcement Insurance was the worse performing segment by a long way. Based on operating profit as % net segment assets (sort of a return on capital) Insurance achieved 13% compared to Insurance at 21% and Credit at 23%.
And wasn’t F19 a boomer year for Insurance with those huge property gains.
Doesn’t seem to make sense keeping it ...under performs and can’t be ‘core’
Some interesting forward thinking demonstrated in the last few slides of the last weeks presentation pack.
‘Big data analytics’, ‘adjacenties’, ‘platforms’, ‘aggregator model’ etc all sound cool but being the ‘Netflix for Cars’ sounds really exciting.
These ideas address some of the concerns some on here have had about the future of the car market - car sharing going to kill them for instance.
Hope it’s all not as expensive and causes short term pain like thl’s move into the online close to consumer space.
Netflix for cars sounds really cool - but only until you start thinking about it. The business model of Netflix is basically infinitely scalable with very little additional cost for additional customers (they don't need more movies for more customers, given that many customers can watch at the same time the same movie) while for Turners the savings for a larger number of customers are quite minimal. One customer one car, hundred customers hundred cars, one million customers - do I need to expand?
Not sure whether buzzwords which don't really make sense for their circumstances makes their stakeholders feel better.
But maybe they find a way to create (for them) free copies of the cars they are selling - hey, this would be a game changer.
Turners Board (all white males by the looks of it) ticks all the boxes ....that’s goodQuote:
percy (from another thread)
Berkshire Hathaway.
Explicity states it does not consider diversity when hiring board members.
It does not seek diversity,however defined.
Instead, the Governance Committee looks for individuals who have very high integrity,business savvy,an owner oriented attitude, and a deep genuin interest in the company.
- High integrity — TICK
- Business savvy — TICK
- Owner orientated attitude — TICK
- Deep genuine interest in the company — TICK, TICK TICK
So by implication Turners is a great company ...wonder what’s gone wrong lately
Well as a fully informed shareholder, you know what went wrong,and like me, you will agree the board have identified the problems, and are/have taken the right actions to return Turners to a fully focussed extremely profitable company,that will have the capacity to keep paying increasing fully imputed dividends [paid quarterly],as per my post #5242.
Yes the board tick all Buffett's and Munger's boxes.....I find that reassuring.
ps.Would be nice to own a few Berkshire Hathaway shares too...lol.
pps.Like Buffett, Turners know how to put insurance reserves to very profitable use..No surprises there.!
Yep, little problems being sorted and now one big problem like a broken model.
And that insurance segment is their worst performing segment (return on net assets) by a long in spite of the extraordinary property profits
No wonder Turners has been one of the worst performing shares on the NZX over the last couple of years.
Insurance profits probably not repeating every year, loan delinquencies rising fast, vehicle margins under pressure and now directors breaking it up and selling off the pieces.
Looks a LOT different to the fully integrated strong business model with strong and enduring growth prospects we were very regularly assured many times it was and would be by the unofficial company spokesman.
One is never going to read in any Turners presentation that the used vehicle market is an extremely tough and competitive industry with very low barriers to entry ensuring it will always be that way. They'll never tell you its a sunset industry in a very slow systemic state of decline with the advent of self driving electric cars somewhere on the horizon. People have to work that out for themselves and some of us have done exactly that.
These days there's an app for almost anything. Probably one which automatically includes the latest buzz-words into otherwise dross statements to dress up tough old mutton to look like fresh spring lamb... Such an app is probably costing the PR consultancy firms millions lol
Did you notice the sponsored race car featured on the front slide of the presentation.....nice touch (and gives management the warm fuzzies and tells the world the sponsorship is worth every penny it’s costing them)
And doesn’t Todd Turner look cute these days ...got to be careful what images you use on some slides
In the old days cheat sheets were often used to make things sound good.
And you are right there are apps these days to help writers / managers to gloss up their presentations.
I’ve been involved in preparing these sort of presentations. I keep getting told it was important to choose the most appropriate words (in the trade they are called buzzwords) to espouse your strategy. Besides the general narrative it’s also a great skill to be able to put the narrative into bullet points without diluting the message. A big challenge is to be able to produce diagrams / psuedo flow charts to show how all the points fit together — using arrows is important so the reader can be guided through the slide.
A really good presentation would go through many iterations - change a few buzzwords, add a couple more images, make the arrows more rounded etc etc ....all the while making sure you kept in company guidelines re fonts and colours.
What I found was that has the presentation developed management became more and more obsessed with the bull**** they were coming up ...in fact they became more and more delusional.
Turners latest presentation a reasonable effort. Best part is the subliminal w use of the Carly, Drover, Flexidrive etc logos - gives you the message that they are on top of how the world is changing.
Mind you the media are just bad in their reporting
No doubt the powers to be did a lot of brainstorming and strategising using the good old white board
Wonder if this was part of their work
Whack a mole and no buyers.
There's a TRA presentation on Christchurch end of this month / early next. Date and time to be confirmed.
https://www.nzshareholders.co.nz/sha...D=6&branchID=5
I don't hold, but I do follow this thread. I just can't quite get the 'drift' of this company, so I'll probably go along. Heads up to anyone else in the Christchurch area that might be interested.
time to bring back the share buyback
I see the Panmure Buy right site has now been rebranded - looks the part
You were right percy n that post you've deleted
While TRA 35% off it's highs SUM is about the same (but only 30%)
Both priced as if a no / low growth company
Always best to buy when this is the case (as opposed to buying when overprices) - you get the benefit of the growth and the rerating eh
SUM and TRA punters will do well in future from these low prices
Your figures do not account for the extra dividends TRA shareholders received.I noted SUM's sp was down 23% in the past year while TRA's was down 21.2%.These figures did not account for dividends.And as I had trouble working them out ,as I could not remember the amount SUM's dividend was imputed,I deleted my post..TRA's offcourse is fully imputed..
Bit easier for TRA shareholders with TRA paying about three times SUM's yield.
As per the deleted post I like both companies,and find it somewhat confusing, that most posters on this thread rubbish TRA,while on the SUM thread they think the opposite.
,
A two year view of SUM v TRA Attachment 10597
I note a little bit of interest drummed itself up on the buy side for a while today. as commented on by couta it was very vacant there initially and does seem to have thinned out at close.
price closed up 2 but only buyers sitting at -8. :mellow:
Looks to me as though a buyer sits on the side lines ,and waits for sellers to show their hand,before he decides whether to buy or not.
If you watch PAZ on www.usx.co.nz the seller takes the same, but opposite view.[Figure that out if you can]
Both seem to have a good buy/sell model."It really works".
Great knowing we are all right.!!
All time high.
one year.
two year.
Perhaps one day we will all be on the same page [although I very much doubt it].
Well the next two to three years should be fun.
I will all the time be enjoying my great increasing TRA fully imputed paid quarterly divies.Next one 18th July.
About three times SUM yield.
Those relative performance charts are easy to cherry pick eh? Regardless, both have smashed a heap of investors capital for holders from their highs. As Percy says though, TRA still have a better payout, so assuming holders live long enough they'll get their capital back in dividends, likewise SUM in time. Both should return to a sustained SP uptrend at some stage though, sometimes best to just suck up the earnings and put the charts and daily commentaries away where they belong.
I can't understand why a long term value investor even bothers looking at the daily share price. Better to have a few really exciting companies if one likes taking a daily view, it tends to deflect attention from the long holds daily movements.
Nicholas Taleb did a piece in Fooled by Randomness about watching your portfolio on a regular basis - the successful portfolio he used as an example he said this - A minute-by-minute examination of his performance means that each day (assuming eight hours per day) he will have 241 pleasurable minutes against 239 unpleasurable ones. These amount to 60,688 and 60,271, respectively, per year
Seems the more you look the more pain you suffer (assuming a down tick causes more pain than the pleasure of an up tick)
I also liked this bit of advice though I never heed it - Reading daily news takes a lot of effort for little reward. Therefore we should stop doing it. If the news is essential, it will travel through the grapevine to reach you somehow.
I don't have any long holds on a 'watchlist' (like ASB Securities or MyNZX etc, for example), only things on watchlists are things I want to watch in case I might buy them. The stuff I actually own is in my portfolios on Sharesight.
Anyway, it would be hard to advocate a share, or bag it, if one didn't look at it daily, preferably many many times a day. Lol.
My watch lists work just fine for me.Flags show any announcements,so I don't miss a thing.!
www.stocknessmonster.com
For what’s it worth only 1 broker seems to cover TRA these day — assume FNZC as they seem closely involved in ‘advising’ Turners — but maybe not as Chinese walls exist.
Whoever their target is $2.59 .....implying current share price value of $2.30/$2.35
No profit growth on the horizon....but HUGE DIVIDENDS FORECAST
https://www.marketscreener.com/TURNE...944/consensus/
Both Craigs and FNZC cover Turners.
As you point out FNZC can't give target price etc as they are advising TRA in regards to Oxford Finance.
Interesting comments .One from each broker.
"with growth in the contributions from Auto retail and Finance the main drivers."
"solid underlying earnings growth is expected over the next two years".
Forecast dividends: Refer my post #5242 on this thread.
Just as well Turners don’t sell new cars .....and hopefully punters who need a ‘new’ car are buying decent used cars
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/1...-continueshtml
I think that's a VERY stark illustration of how the economy is cooling and many consumers are deferring expensive replacement decisions of many different types.
We have the now, well known problem of used campervans not selling and as someone who is taking more than a passing interest in boats at present I can see that very very few boats of any decent value have been selling on Trade Me. Fortunately TRA's one saving grace is most of their customers are not making a discretionary purchase and their previous clapped out ride needs to be replaced with another heavily used one.
I hope that Turners raving on how ‘big data’ is going to transform their business is not just a case of jumping on the band wagon and saying the right things.
For such a strategy to be successful a cultural change is required within the company. Even with the data and analytics they already have they have seemed pretty slow in identifying problems / issues ...but I suppose you’ve got to start somewhere.
"Cartopia" or some similar phrase a few years ago was supposed to be the way to incredible online growth in sales using big data and overseas based analytics'....I think they ran into a tiny wee problem called Trade Me. They've been playing with that "Buzzwords app", its as simple as that.
Bottom line is 90%+ of vehicles are listed on Trade Me and more and more people are cutting dealers margins out of the loop using Trade Me who now have a tie-up with Motor Trade Finance for online finance.
Turners have got trademe covered with plenty of its cars for sale on there.
One way of looking at it, another is Trade Me have Turners covered with more than 90% of the total vehicle market place on its site.
Everyone I know that's looking for a vehicle starts by looking on Trade Me and many dealers use indicative asking prices on there as a point of reference because of the depth of the market. Turners will always be a minnow compared to the online market place that is Trade Me and that's part of their problem going forward in my opinion, not that they will ever admit to it in one of their presentations...
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/335717
Director throwing $40k at more TRA shares.
Must be undervalued big time
We know it should be worth north of $3
At least that's what the directors say
Yes Turners have used Trade Me, and other chanels, to become the biggest used vehicle and machinery retailer in NZ.
I except they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Paul Byrnes building a deck for summer?
https://www.nzx.com/announcements/335919
Its always a worry when directors / senior executives see the best way of financing a deck is selling shares. Jeez - he could probably extend his mortgage for 4%. (and wouldn't his healthy TRA divvies pay that?). Which tells us his expected limitation of growth in the TRA SP
taking the opportunity to sell before the buy back kicks in given how undervalued they are. Like any sensible director would.
Of course it is only a small amount relative to the holding, but if the director surely believed they were the absolute bargain, which we can assume is the reason for voting for a company buy back, then he would finance the continued ownership, wouldn't he?
Directors and management selling shares is not necessarily a bad sign. Directors and management buying shares is more likely to be a good indication.
As a case in point Scott Bradley sold 6,000,000 plexure shares for 20 c each about a year ago.
I bet he regrets that decision
Maybe buying a few PAZ.?
Not really material or significant, considering the number he holds.
The buy back means he [and us] have increased our % holding,and in Paul Byrnes case, by more than he has sold..
ps.TK {team knockers] will have a field day.
HARD HAT ON.
More to add to my ignore list??...LOL.