RCCL stock price

[Wineaux007]

3 minutes ago, DirtyDawg said:

I was a Director of one of the Big Wall Street firm's Canadian subsidiary for a few years but I was mostly on the asset management (Buy) side.  But as a Director I had a lot of dealings with a lot of our retail brokers and their management teams so I'm a little biased against the typical retail broker model. At that time, most of their compensation was driven by commissions and volume was emphasized over quality, hence my short stay  - and my bias.  I'm sure things have changed since and a more fiduciary model has developed so my advice to any retail investor would be to seek out an advisor who is a true fiduciary and not compensated with a commission model. 

When I decided to purchase RCL stock back in 2009 when it was $16 a share, my financial advisor cautioned me, but went ahead and purchased the shares.  Our original thought was we would be sailing on Celebrity & Royal, so the OBC would be a big plus.  The stock dove a little later to $5 a share, and my wife said we should purchase more.  My thought, What the hell does she know?  🙄

 

The shares just sit there, and we have been sucking out the OBC, especially since it has now become combinable.  

[DirtyDawg]

12 minutes ago, Wineaux007 said:

When I decided to purchase RCL stock back in 2009 when it was $16 a share, my financial advisor cautioned me, but went ahead and purchased the shares.  Our original thought was we would be sailing on Celebrity & Royal, so the OBC would be a big plus.  The stock dove a little later to $5 a share, and my wife said we should purchase more.  My thought, What the hell does she know?  🙄

 

The shares just sit there, and we have been sucking out the OBC, especially since it has now become combinable.  

So you use a financial advisor. What compensation model does he/she use? Are you satisfied with their performance for you?

 

 

[DirtyDawg]

25 minutes ago, Stockjock said:

The vast majority of the business for many is fee-based.  I prefer this, as it removes most conflicts of interest, and everyone benefits from increases in asset value and suffers when the asset values decline.  So in essence, all are on the same side of the table.  Plus, there are typically more stringent rules in place for advisory fee-based accounts and a fiduciary standard as well.

I'm glad that the business has changed. The investing public is the winner and the industry still succeeds. 

[intr3pid]

13 hours ago, DirtyDawg said:

But in your original post on this subject you indicated the buyers of those bonds "those tempted" bought at 675 over some LIBOR(OIS) rate. CCL might have swapped it for 675 over a LIBOR (OIS) rate after issue, but did they? I don't follow CCL closely so I might have missed that announcement. Please feel free to post that information from CCL. I'm curious what they managed to do with this issue. 

 

So my apologies for my first post. I was on the buy side for 30 years so that's my perspective. ( Well, actually only 28 years because they managed to lure my over to the dark (sell) side for 2 years).  You were coming from the issuers side. 

Mostly buy side here too - but have been involved in more than my share of private investments and the structuring that comes with it.  

 

CCL doesn't disclose the details of its swaps.  That their net market value is very low suggests they have been issued more recently.  Most of the fundraising this year has been to dispatch the maturing debt.  The unsecured 10.375%, for instance, replaced the 10.5%-11.5% notes from 2020.  So, investors are biting at a (slightly) lower yield against a higher benchmark rate.

 

To be honest, CCL's equity raises have been the real problem.  Unavoidable maybe, but awfully dilutive.

[DirtyDawg]

4 minutes ago, intr3pid said:

Mostly buy side here too - but have been involved in more than my share of private investments and the structuring that comes with it.  

 

CCL doesn't disclose the details of its swaps.  That their net market value is very low suggests they have been issued more recently.  Most of the fundraising this year has been to dispatch the maturing debt.  The unsecured 10.375%, for instance, replaced the 10.5%-11.5% notes from 2020.  So, investors are biting at a (slightly) lower yield against a higher benchmark rate.

 

To be honest, CCL's equity raises have been the real problem.  Unavoidable maybe, but awfully dilutive.

There's going to be a HBR case about this someday. What a mess!

[D C]

11 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t understand why the obc is used in a calculation  to show a 10% dividend. In order to get the obc you have to book a cruise. Your calculation should be based on what you paid. the obc amount is based on the number of days of the cruise.For example if you paid $3,000 and got $100 obc, that’s 3.3%. If you paid $5,000, it’s 2%, etc. This would be for every new cruise you book, no cruises booked, no $100 or whatever amount. Dividends pay out no matter if you never invest another penny with the company.

Am I missing something that makes this assumption wrong.

I think you missed the word "like".  If you spent $1000 on 100 shares of CCL and took a cruise, you just realised $100 on your $1000 investment. Much like you would with a 10% dividend. 

[grandgeezer]

1 hour ago, D C said:

I think you missed the word "like".  If you spent $1000 on 100 shares of CCL and took a cruise, you just realised $100 on your $1000 investment. Much like you would with a 10% dividend. 

You missed the point, you don’t get anything up front for buying the stock you get the obc when you book a cruise. It will probably cost you several thousand dollars on a cruise for the right to get $100 obc. $2,000 paid for a cruise to get $100 obc = 2%.

If you never book another cruise, you will never to the $100 obc for being a stockholder. If you get a 10% dividend from a different stock you will get it every year without paying another penny.

[NMTraveller]

Well I suppose that I could ask my financial advisor about the financials of me purchasing 100 shares of RCL for the OBC,  but I think that she would just laugh at me as she has all of the statistics, AI, ML, etc.

 

I can replay the conversation without talking to her.  And Mr. XX how many years will it be before RCL become profitable again?   2, 3,  :LMAO:

[D C]

7 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

You missed the point, you don’t get anything up front for buying the stock you get the obc when you book a cruise. It will probably cost you several thousand dollars on a cruise for the right to get $100 obc. $2,000 paid for a cruise to get $100 obc = 2%.

If you never book another cruise, you will never to the $100 obc for being a stockholder. If you get a 10% dividend from a different stock you will get it every year without paying another penny.

And if you cruise regularly with the same line it works out nicely.   If you take 2 cruises per year, in < 5 years you have your CCL investment back for doing nothing different than you would do without the stock purchase.  

[Kilroyshere]

11 hours ago, DirtyDawg said:

So you use a financial advisor. What compensation model does he/she use? Are you satisfied with their performance for you?

 

 

DirtyDog;

 

There was an old stockbroker saying: "I made $ and so did my Brokerage firm. 2 outta 3 ain't bad. Heck, nobody in the majors bats .666!"

 

As you might well know, stockbrokers were Broker-Dealer commission based for a very long time. More trades = more commissions with a myriad of conflicts of interest.

 

Around the late 80's, the model changed from Commission Based to Fee Based. Instead of Stockbrokers and BD's charging commissions for trades, in fee based accounts investors are commonly charged percentage fees based on assets under 'management.' If assets grow, so do fees and vice versa.

 

Stockbrokers became 'Investment Advisors' (RIA's) expected to act in a Fiduciary  capacity to satisfy the standard of suitability. NASD as former governing body was replaced by FINRA. Coke or Pepsi?

 

Many retail customers don't realize their fee based account with funds parked in managed accounts  often have further fees the retail investor may pay beyond those paid to their RIA advisor e.g.; mutual fund internal expenses, funds may have front/back end loads, 12B-1's, soft dollars, 3rd party or internal money management firms who also take management fees.

 

If ya think big makes investment firms safe, let's recall the subprime mortgage backed securities debacle taking down or requiring govt. bailouts among the biggest e.g.; Lehman, Merrill, WaMu, PNC, Bear Stearns, etc., costing taxpayers billions.

 

If you think bond rating services are a good indicator of safety as was mentioned earlier herein, the biggest rating firms improperly rated subprime mortgage backed securities as the junk they were.   

 

I'm not mesmerized nor sold on commonly offered Securities industry Asset Allocation modeling, Diversification, Suitability, Research, Due Diligence, Dollar Cost Averaging (the ultimate device of mediocrity IMO) claims.

 

Those all sound good and could be to some extent. But as they are sold and used in so many managed accounts I've seen, they put customers in a diversified basket of pooled funds with total returns that too often barely equal simple, low cost, efficient, index funds.  

 

Which gets me back to this thread OP and earlier discussion if the big 3 cruise lines were in trouble after the Crystal debacle.

 

I can't find any Street research who in September had a short term 'Buy' opinion for cruise lines reaching all time stock price lows at that time. One wire house claimed bankruptcy was coming to one line...and one day it may sooner or later.

 

Meanwhile, back in late September a few speculators saw a contrarian gem to pick off as a high risk/reward short-term play on the cruise lines.

 

In late September news was widely reporting Covid cases were on the decline. Cruise lines were reportring  future bookings were at all time record highs or equal to 2019 pre-Covid bookings. The cruise lines were returning their fleets back to sea. And all while so many on the Street research side were screaming 'stay away from cruise stocks.' Wow, what were they thinking?

 

It was the perfect winter coat on super-sale in summer.

 

It was a dream contrarian, short-term, spec play indeed and not a play for your nest-egg dollars.

 

To date for 2022, Q4 cruise stocks are among the best performing sectors.

 

What happens from here with cruise stocks? I don't have a clue. Huge risks hang over the industry.

 

This isn't advice to anyone. It's just my opinion and worth every cent ya paid for it, just as it was my opinion in late September that cruise stocks then, looked very juicy.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Kilroyshere

[Wineaux007]

1 hour ago, Kilroyshere said:

DirtyDog;

 

There was an old stockbroker saying: "I made $ and so did my Brokerage firm. 2 outta 3 ain't bad. Heck, nobody in the majors bats .666!"

 

As you might well know, stockbrokers were Broker-Dealer commission based for a very long time. More trades = more commissions with a myriad of conflicts of interest.

 

Around the late 80's, the model changed from Commission Based to Fee Based. Instead of Stockbrokers and BD's charging commissions for trades, in fee based accounts investors are commonly charged percentage fees based on assets under 'management.' If assets grow, so do fees and vice versa.

 

Stockbrokers became 'Investment Advisors' (RIA's) expected to act in a Fiduciary  capacity to satisfy the standard of suitability. NASD as former governing body was replaced by FINRA. Coke or Pepsi?

 

Many retail customers don't realize their fee based account with funds parked in managed accounts  often have further fees the retail investor may pay beyond those paid to their RIA advisor e.g.; mutual fund internal expenses, funds may have front/back end loads, 12B-1's, soft dollars, 3rd party or internal money management firms who also take management fees.

 

If ya think big makes investment firms safe, let's recall the subprime mortgage backed securities debacle taking down or requiring govt. bailouts among the biggest e.g.; Lehman, Merrill, WaMu, PNC, Bear Stearns, etc., costing taxpayers billions.

 

If you think bond rating services are a good indicator of safety as was mentioned earlier herein, the biggest rating firms improperly rated subprime mortgage backed securities as the junk they were.   

 

I'm not mesmerized nor sold on commonly offered Securities industry Asset Allocation modeling, Diversification, Suitability, Research, Due Diligence, Dollar Cost Averaging (the ultimate device of mediocrity IMO) claims.

 

Those all sound good and could be to some extent. But as they are sold and used in so many managed accounts I've seen, they put customers in a diversified basket of pooled funds with total returns that too often barely equal simple, low cost, efficient, index funds.  

 

Which gets me back to this thread OP and earlier discussion if the big 3 cruise lines were in trouble after the Crystal debacle.

 

I can't find any Street research who in September had a short term 'Buy' opinion for cruise lines reaching all time stock price lows at that time. One wire house claimed bankruptcy was coming to one line...and one day it may sooner or later.

 

Meanwhile, back in late September a few speculators saw a contrarian gem to pick off as a high risk/reward short-term play on the cruise lines.

 

In late September news was widely reporting Covid cases were on the decline. Cruise lines were reportring  future bookings were at all time record highs or equal to 2019 pre-Covid bookings. The cruise lines were returning their fleets back to sea. And all while so many on the Street research side were screaming 'stay away from cruise stocks.' Wow, what were they thinking?

 

It was the perfect winter coat on super-sale in summer.

 

It was a dream contrarian, short-term, spec play indeed and not a play for your nest-egg dollars.

 

To date for 2022, Q4 cruise stocks are among the best performing sectors.

 

What happens from here with cruise stocks? I don't have a clue. Huge risks hang over the industry.

 

This isn't advice to anyone. It's just my opinion and worth every cent ya paid for it, just as it was my opinion in late September that cruise stocks then, looked very juicy.

Too much info.  🙄

[The_Big_M]

10 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

You missed the point, you don’t get anything up front for buying the stock you get the obc when you book a cruise. It will probably cost you several thousand dollars on a cruise for the right to get $100 obc. $2,000 paid for a cruise to get $100 obc = 2%.

If you never book another cruise, you will never to the $100 obc for being a stockholder. If you get a 10% dividend from a different stock you will get it every year without paying another penny.

 

The contra is that those discussing it here would have bought the cruise anyway. So it's not an extra cost that has arisen, or needed, just because they bought the shares. They don't pay extra just to get the OBC.

 

But if they hadn't bought the shares they wouldn't get the credit. So, yes, the OBC is a bonus from having the shares, just as a dividend would be.

[grandgeezer]

36 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

The contra is that those discussing it here would have bought the cruise anyway. So it's not an extra cost that has arisen, or needed, just because they bought the shares. They don't pay extra just to get the OBC.

 

But if they hadn't bought the shares they wouldn't get the credit. So, yes, the OBC is a bonus from having the shares, just as a dividend would be.

Not even close, the obc cost them extra money, even if they would have booked the cruise anyway.

Nonrefundable obc is a joke, the only think worthwhile is if you use it for gratuities, everything else is so overpriced, the $100 obc probably cost them 1/10 of that (think alcohol).

You keep paying your thousands of dollars for cruises to get the obc and I’ll take my dividends and spend it, or reinvest it as I see fit. That’s all free money, no other spending required.

 

[D C]

9 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

Not even close, the obc cost them extra money, even if they would have booked the cruise anyway.

Nonrefundable obc is a joke, the only think worthwhile is if you use it for gratuities, everything else is so overpriced, the $100 obc probably cost them 1/10 of that (think alcohol).

You keep paying your thousands of dollars for cruises to get the obc and I’ll take my dividends and spend it, or reinvest it as I see fit. That’s all free money, no other spending required.

 

I booked a cruise that I would have booked anyway. 

 

I bought a stock that I felt was a good investment for the purchase price. 

That stock happened to compliment the already booked cruise with some obc. 

 

Where did the supposed "extra" money come from?

[Salt Lifer]

9 hours ago, grandgeezer said:

Not even close, the obc cost them extra money, even if they would have booked the cruise anyway.

Nonrefundable obc is a joke, the only think worthwhile is if you use it for gratuities, everything else is so overpriced, the $100 obc probably cost them 1/10 of that (think alcohol).

You keep paying your thousands of dollars for cruises to get the obc and I’ll take my dividends and spend it, or reinvest it as I see fit. That’s all free money, no other spending required.

 

 

Not exactly free money; the government will take their cut.  Meanwhile OBC from stocks is not taxed.  

 

If you use OBC for something you would have paid cash for anyway (say, an excursion or drinks) than that $100 OBC is actually worth more than $100 in dividends because you aren't getting taxed on those earning.  

 

 

[DirtyDawg]

15 hours ago, Salt Lifer said:

 

Not exactly free money; the government will take their cut.  Meanwhile OBC from stocks is not taxed.  

 

If you use OBC for something you would have paid cash for anyway (say, an excursion or drinks) than that $100 OBC is actually worth more than $100 in dividends because you aren't getting taxed on those earning.  

 

 

 

🤯 What? We don't tax this stockholder benefit???

 

Thanks you letting us know. I'll be sending out a memo correcting this oversight ASAP. 

 

Yours Truly,

T. Gouger, Acting Commissioner of IRS

 

😉

 

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by DirtyDawg

[grandgeezer]

16 hours ago, Salt Lifer said:

 

Not exactly free money; the government will take their cut.  Meanwhile OBC from stocks is not taxed.  

 

If you use OBC for something you would have paid cash for anyway (say, an excursion or drinks) than that $100 OBC is actually worth more than $100 in dividends because you aren't getting taxed on those earning.  

 

 

Not always, if ever true. $100 nonrefundable obc has to be spent on the ship or you lose it. Take beer, for example, with the $100  I could get about nine beers, including tip. I take my $100 dividend and buy beer at home. At current pricing, that buys me 140 beers, including taxes. If I wait for a holiday sale, like I did for Labor Day and Thanksgiving, I can get 184, including taxes. The $100 dividend I have to pay taxes on, is peanuts and would probably reduce my purchases by 20-25 beers max.

Because of the pricing, our onboard spend has been 0 for at least six years. We do spend  money in ports, usually drinks or food. 

[Salt Lifer]

1 hour ago, grandgeezer said:

Not always, if ever true. $100 nonrefundable obc has to be spent on the ship or you lose it. Take beer, for example, with the $100  I could get about nine beers, including tip. I take my $100 dividend and buy beer at home. At current pricing, that buys me 140 beers, including taxes. If I wait for a holiday sale, like I did for Labor Day and Thanksgiving, I can get 184, including taxes. The $100 dividend I have to pay taxes on, is peanuts and would probably reduce my purchases by 20-25 beers max.

Because of the pricing, our onboard spend has been 0 for at least six years. We do spend  money in ports, usually drinks or food. 

But you are assuming a scenario where you spend zero while on board.  That is simply not realistic for the majority of cruisers.  Most of us plan on spend some money, be it on an excursion, pictures, food/beverage, or even just a t-shirt.  Yes, these items are "overpriced" but if you are going to spend the money it is better to spend non-refundable OBC than cash.  

[DirtyDawg]

On 12/5/2022 at 9:10 AM, Kilroyshere said:

DirtyDog;

 

There was an old stockbroker saying: "I made $ and so did my Brokerage firm. 2 outta 3 ain't bad. Heck, nobody in the majors bats .666!"

 

As you might well know, stockbrokers were Broker-Dealer commission based for a very long time. More trades = more commissions with a myriad of conflicts of interest.

 

Around the late 80's, the model changed from Commission Based to Fee Based. Instead of Stockbrokers and BD's charging commissions for trades, in fee based accounts investors are commonly charged percentage fees based on assets under 'management.' If assets grow, so do fees and vice versa.

 

Stockbrokers became 'Investment Advisors' (RIA's) expected to act in a Fiduciary  capacity to satisfy the standard of suitability. NASD as former governing body was replaced by FINRA. Coke or Pepsi?

 

Many retail customers don't realize their fee based account with funds parked in managed accounts  often have further fees the retail investor may pay beyond those paid to their RIA advisor e.g.; mutual fund internal expenses, funds may have front/back end loads, 12B-1's, soft dollars, 3rd party or internal money management firms who also take management fees.

 

If ya think big makes investment firms safe, let's recall the subprime mortgage backed securities debacle taking down or requiring govt. bailouts among the biggest e.g.; Lehman, Merrill, WaMu, PNC, Bear Stearns, etc., costing taxpayers billions.

 

If you think bond rating services are a good indicator of safety as was mentioned earlier herein, the biggest rating firms improperly rated subprime mortgage backed securities as the junk they were.   

 

I'm not mesmerized nor sold on commonly offered Securities industry Asset Allocation modeling, Diversification, Suitability, Research, Due Diligence, Dollar Cost Averaging (the ultimate device of mediocrity IMO) claims.

 

Those all sound good and could be to some extent. But as they are sold and used in so many managed accounts I've seen, they put customers in a diversified basket of pooled funds with total returns that too often barely equal simple, low cost, efficient, index funds.  

 

Which gets me back to this thread OP and earlier discussion if the big 3 cruise lines were in trouble after the Crystal debacle.

 

I can't find any Street research who in September had a short term 'Buy' opinion for cruise lines reaching all time stock price lows at that time. One wire house claimed bankruptcy was coming to one line...and one day it may sooner or later.

 

Meanwhile, back in late September a few speculators saw a contrarian gem to pick off as a high risk/reward short-term play on the cruise lines.

 

In late September news was widely reporting Covid cases were on the decline. Cruise lines were reportring  future bookings were at all time record highs or equal to 2019 pre-Covid bookings. The cruise lines were returning their fleets back to sea. And all while so many on the Street research side were screaming 'stay away from cruise stocks.' Wow, what were they thinking?

 

It was the perfect winter coat on super-sale in summer.

 

It was a dream contrarian, short-term, spec play indeed and not a play for your nest-egg dollars.

 

To date for 2022, Q4 cruise stocks are among the best performing sectors.

 

What happens from here with cruise stocks? I don't have a clue. Huge risks hang over the industry.

 

This isn't advice to anyone. It's just my opinion and worth every cent ya paid for it, just as it was my opinion in late September that cruise stocks then, looked very juicy.

I saw your post yesterday but didn't have time to read it all until today, after I had to comment following @Salt Lifer's post. 😁

 

It sounds like you were about a decade ahead of us moving more to a fee based model and away from the commission model. As I said earlier that is good for both the investors and the industry.  

 

Now let's discuss another contrarian play. Anybody buying crypto? 😉

[grandgeezer]

3 hours ago, Salt Lifer said:

But you are assuming a scenario where you spend zero while on board.  That is simply not realistic for the majority of cruisers.  Most of us plan on spend some money, be it on an excursion, pictures, food/beverage, or even just a t-shirt.  Yes, these items are "overpriced" but if you are going to spend the money it is better to spend non-refundable OBC than cash.  

I didn’t assume anything, I stated our situation only. You determine what you spend and what you spend it on. 

[Kilroyshere]

On 12/6/2022 at 4:56 PM, DirtyDawg said:

I saw your post yesterday but didn't have time to read it all until today, after I had to comment following @Salt Lifer's post. 😁

 

It sounds like you were about a decade ahead of us moving more to a fee based model and away from the commission model. As I said earlier that is good for both the investors and the industry.  

 

Now let's discuss another contrarian play. Anybody buying crypto? 😉

 

Lest you think today's 'fiduciary' fee based model is better, safer or more legit for investors than yesteryear's transaction based commission model, it's not IMO. It sounds and looks more legit and sells better that way for a myriad of reasons. All conjured up behind Wall Street Wizard's curtain.

 

The fee based model reduced BD Corporate employee body counts converting many Stockbrokers into Independent Contractor Financial Consultants and putting the employee overhead costs on the FC.

 

 

CRYPTO: An intangible souvenir some bought/buy with hopes they'll sell it at a higher price to someone more stupid than they are and with greater hope it doesn't disappear ala FTX.

 

It's not a Registered Security. It's not a legal currency. It's presently unregulated.

 

Buying Crypto is less than buying a collectable vintage baseball card that you can hold and view.

 

"What? We don't tax this (OBC) stockholder benefit???:" - DirtyDawg

 

Credit Card ca$h rebates and airline credit card point programs are in the cross-hairs of the current IRS and their overlords.

 

The current regime wants to hire 87,000 new IRS field agents to go after...tell me again bout that George?

[DirtyDawg]

1 hour ago, Kilroyshere said:

 

Lest you think today's 'fiduciary' fee based model is better, safer or more legit for investors than yesteryear's transaction based commission model, it's not IMO. It sounds and looks more legit and sells better that way for a myriad of reasons. All conjured up behind Wall Street Wizard's curtain.

 

The fee based model reduced BD Corporate employee body counts converting many Stockbrokers into Independent Contractor Financial Consultants and putting the employee overhead costs on the FC.

 

 

CRYPTO: An intangible souvenir some bought/buy with hopes they'll sell it at a higher price to someone more stupid than they are and with greater hope it doesn't disappear ala FTX.

 

It's not a Registered Security. It's not a legal currency. It's presently unregulated.

 

Buying Crypto is less than buying a collectable vintage baseball card that you can hold and view.

 

"What? We don't tax this (OBC) stockholder benefit???:" - DirtyDawg

 

Credit Card ca$h rebates and airline credit card point programs are in the cross-hairs of the current IRS and their overlords.

 

The current regime wants to hire 87,000 new IRS field agents to go after...tell me again bout that George?

Firstly, we will have to agree to disagree on fee based vs. commission models.

 

Second, when telling the "why did the chicken cross the road?"  joke I tend to keep it simple and don't bother to get into whether is was a  Plymouth Rock, Rhode Island Red, or Buckeye variety or a further discussion of the relative merits of each, or whether it was crossing the road in midtown Manhattan or in Kalamazoo.  Sometimes brevity is better. 😉

 

Lastly, who's George?  

(And yes folks, I might regret asking that question.🙂)

 

 

[Kilroyshere]

2 minutes ago, DirtyDawg said:

Lastly, who's George?  

(And yes folks, I might regret asking that question.🙂)

 

 

George Milton from Steinbeck's 'Of Mice and Men.'

 

(with brevity)

[DirtyDawg]

1 minute ago, Kilroyshere said:

George Milton from Steinbeck's 'Of Mice and Men.'

 

(with brevity)

👍

[apierson23]

On 12/5/2022 at 10:17 AM, Wineaux007 said:

Too much info.  🙄