Risk and reasonableness for nonmarket occupancy--a second look during a recession.
ABSTRACTProperties may have income that is different from otherwise comparable properties due to above- or below-market leases or below-market occupancy, especially in a volatile market. A common approach to valuing such properties is to begin with the value as if the property were stabilized at market rents. This value must then be adjusted for the present value of the rent differential actually realized by the property. Should this rent differential be discounted at a higher or lower rate than a property at stabilized market rents? This article revisits this issue as it applies in the current recessionary market.
**********
The turmoil in financial markets and resulting economic recession has led to rising vacancy and falling market rents. In this type of market, it is highly unlikely that the leased fee value of a property will equal its fee simple value at stabilized occupancy. Properties often have above-market contract rents due to leases signed before the recession as well as above-market occupancy until existing leases roll over. As the market recovers, the opposite may occur as leases signed during the recession are below market. The degree of differences between contract and market rents and differences between actual and market occupancy in this volatile market make it more important than ever to understand how to reconcile property value differences between leased fee and fee simple estates and to properly account for the impact of differences in rents and occupancy on the value of a property being appraised.
Any time the full right of occupancy cannot be transferred with a property due to the presence of tenants, a leased fee estate exists. The impact on value of a leased fee estate becomes meaningful if the contract rent is substantially above or below market rent, or if occupancy is significantly different from stabilized market rates (but greater than zero). (1) Such conditions are collectively referred to as nonmarket occupancy. Unlike most appraisal problems, which can be ultimately solved by isolating market behavior, nonmarket occupancy valuation problems usually lack the benefit of empirical evidence. Each condition is inherently unique, and therefore appraisers--and the market--must rely upon other means for measuring their impact on value.
A common approach used to determine the value of a property suffering from nonmarket occupancy (2) is to start with the value as if the property were at stabilized market rents, and then adjust for the rent differential due to the nonmarket leases or due to the time until vacant space has been absorbed and leased at market rents. The advantage of this approach is that the "as if stabilized market value" is often much easier to estimate and all three valuation approaches can often be applied, resulting in a reliable value indication for the theoretical fee simple estate. For the reason stated previously, it is virtually impossible to independently value a leased fee estate using the sales comparison and cost approaches. Any valuation that relies on only one approach is de facto less reliable than a value derived with two or more approaches. It follows, then, that if a reliable determination can be made of the "as if stabilized market value" (occupied fee simple), the opportunity for error in total property value is reduced by isolating the value attributable to the rent differential.
Thus, the "as if stabilized market value" often provides a good starting point for estimating the value of a property that has nonmarket income. This value must be adjusted for the present value of the projected rent differential due to whatever is causing the income to be more or less than its stabilized level. This involves two steps. First, there should be an estimate of the rent differential until the property reaches stabilized occupancy or market rents. Second, the rent differential should be discounted at an appropriate rate to find the present value of the rent differential.
But what discount rate should be used for discounting the rent differential? Should the discount rate be higher or lower than the rate that might be used in a discounted cash flow analysis to find the occupied fee simple value? For above-market rent, also known as excess rent,(3) we know that greater risk is involved in collecting the rent than would normally be present, and therefore, a discount rate higher than normal is appropriate. This is also the case for above-market occupancy in a depressed market. (4) However, for below-market occupancy and below-market rent (collectively referred to as rent loss), the answer is not so clear. Should a safe rate be used to discount the rent loss? Surprisingly, the answer is that it depends. Not all sources of rent loss should be treated the same way. In some cases the rent loss is less risky and in other cases it is more risky.
The point of this article is to provide insight into the selection of the discount rate to be applied to the rent differential by looking more carefully at the causes of the difference and theoretical issues that apply in each case.
Case I--Below-Market Rent
Suppose that a property has some existing leases that are significantly below market rates. These leases are expected to roll over to market rents within the next couple of years. There are plenty of comparable properties at market rents, so you are comfortable estimating the fee simple value as a starting point. The existing use is considered the highest and best use of the site, and the cost approach confirms the fee simple value. Assume that the discount rate for valuing the property with rents at market levels is 12%, based on conversations with investors who have purchased similar properties.
What discount rate should be applied to the rent loss? Under normal circumstances, it would be expected that the proper property discount rate ([Y.sub.o]) for this property would be less than 12%. For the isolated rent loss, however, the rate would be higher than 12%. The rent loss is measured as the difference between market rents and the rent from the existing below-market lease. This rent differential is highly dependent on fluctuations in market rents. A decrease (increase) in market rents can result in a significant decrease (increase) in the amount of rent loss. For example, assume market rents are at $20 per square foot and the rent from the existing lease is at $16 per square foot. A $2 decrease in market rents is only a 10% change in market rents, but the rent loss decreases from $4 to $2, or a 50% change. The greater uncertainty associated with the rent loss means a higher discount rate must be applied to it.
Another way to approach this case is to consider the discount rate that would be applied to value the property using its actual rents, which includes the below-market lease. The bad news is that a below-market lease results in less income. The good news is that there is less uncertainty about getting this income. It is more constant than market rents due to the lease; and if the tenant defaults, the space presumably can be leased at the higher market rent. This is completely consistent with the conclusion that the rent loss must be discounted at a higher rate because the discount rate applicable to the property, as if it were at stabilized market rents, is conceptually a weighted average of the lower rate that would be applicable to the below-market lease and the higher rate applicable to the rent loss.
Figure I summarizes the relationship between the discount rates for this market rent scenario. The income loss would be discounted at a higher rate and the actual income from existing leases would be discounted at a lower rate so that the weighted average of these two rates would be the rate applied to the income as if stabilized at market rents. The value of the income as if stabilized at market rent is equal to the value of the actual below-market income from existing leases plus the value of the rent loss. Note that Figure 1 assumes multitenancy, with the rollover of leases gradually decreasing the income loss.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
By way of example, assume a 10,000-square-foot property with projected market net operating income over the next five years of $10.00 per square foot, increasing 2% per year. At the end of the five-year period, the property will be sold based on a 10% capitalization rate. If the appropriate market (occupied fee simple) discount rate is 12%, an indication of value can be obtained as shown in Table 1.
Now assume that the same property is under lease for five years, which generates a net income of $7.25 per square foot, increasing 2% per year. In addition, assume that about 20% of the space rolls over each year and that space is re-leased at market rent. If the risk were the same, then the same discount rate would apply and the property would be valued as in Table 2.
But if all other factors are equal, an investor should view this property as less risky and apply a discount rate to the leased fee position that is less than the fee simple rate. How much less is the question. The danger is in reducing the discount rate to the point that the property is worth more than the fee simple value. This can be avoided by focusing on the rent differential. The uncertainty associated with the rent differential demands a risk premium. This leads to the conclusion that the discount rate associated with the rent differential must be greater than that applied to the market income stream. If in this case a rate of 18% is appropriate, then the value of the rent differential is calculated as in Table 3.
The value of the property indicated by this approach is the fee simple value ($1,000,000) less the value of the rent differential ($57,840), or $942,160. Is this a reasonable conclusion? Only if the resultant discount rate for the leased fee estate (internal rate of return) is less than the fee simple rate. This is determined as shown in Table 4. This indicates that the leased fee estate value produces an 11.811% internal rate of return (IRR), which is less than the 12% fee simple yield rate.
Another way of looking at the risk associated with below-market rent is to approach the problem as if the rates represent the components of a weighted average cost of capital. In this case, the leased fee estate represents about 94% of the fee simple value and has a discount rate of 11.811%; the rent differential makes up the remaining 6% of value and has a discount rate of 18%. The weighted average cost of capital can be derived as follows:
Leased fee component 94% x 11.811% = 0.111 Rent differential component 6% x 18.000% = 0.011 Weighted average cost of capital 0.122
The fact that the weighted average (12.2%) does not precisely equate to the fee simple yield rate (12%) is due to the changing nature of the ratios. But the approximation confirms the relationship and can itself be used as a test of reasonableness.
Case II--Below-Market Occupancy Rate
In Case II, assume that the property was just renovated and there is space in the building that is not currently occupied because the space could not be leased during the renovation. (5) Market analysis reveals that the vacant space will be leased at market rents within the next several years. Thus, there is currently a rent loss due to above-market vacancy. If all other factors are equal, an investor should view this property as more risky than one fully occupied at market terms. Therefore, the discount rate applied to the leased fee position should be greater than the fee simple rate. How much greater is the question.
As Case I illustrates, an appraiser may feel comfortable estimating the value as if the building were leased at typical market rents and occupancy levels. This allows the leased fee valuation to focus on the rent differential only, thus avoiding the decision about how to load the fee simple discount rate. Thus, the problem is reduced to that of what rate to use to discount the rent loss due to the above-market vacancy. The answer in this case is that the rent loss must be discounted at a lower rate than the fee simple rate, e.g., if, as in Case I, the discount rate applicable to the property were 12% at stabilized market rents, then the rate applicable to the rent differential (in this case a loss) would be lower than 12%. Why would the rate be lower in this case?
Note that in this case the lower rent is not due to existing leases that provide stability to the rent that is being received from the below-market leases. Rather the rent loss is due to lower than normal occupancy. In Case I, we knew when the existing below-market leases would terminate; the only uncertainty was the impact of market rent on the leases and lease renewal. In this case, how long it will be until the property reaches stabilized occupancy is not known; and there is still uncertainty as to what market rents will be when the property is leased.
Furthermore, consider what might happen if there were an unexpected softening in the market. It is likely that this would result in a longer time to lease the vacant space and ultimately, a lower market rent.
Thus, while the rent from leased fee income from a below-market lease was less risky and discounted at a lower rate (with a higher rate applied to the rent loss), the leased fee income from existing leases and lease renewals in this case is more risky and must be discounted at a higher rate (with a lower rate applied to the rent loss). The leased fee income is more risky because it includes the future lease income as well as existing income over the absorption period. (6) Since the income from projected lease of vacant space is so uncertain, the total income from existing leases and projected leases is more risky than income as flail the space were already leased at market rents.
What is more difficult to envision in this case is the reasoning behind a lower rate as it is applied to the rent loss. It is important to realize that in this case the rent loss does not accrue to any legal or economic interest in the property, as was true in the first case where the rent loss accrued to the tenants or leasehold estate. (7) In this second case, no one benefits from the loss in income due to lower occupancy. It is conceivable, however, that a third party would be paid to cover this rent loss. (8) For example, a third-party guarantor would agree to cover any loss in income due to occupancy being less than market occupancy. This is analogous to buying insurance rather than making an investment. You are paying to lower the overall risk of the investment and, therefore, must expect to lower your overall rate of return. The guarantor you pay to incur the rent loss would expect an upfront payment that was equal to the present value of the expected rent loss. The payment amount would be based on discounting the expected rent loss at a relatively low discount rate to ensure funds are available to cover the loss when needed. These funds would be covering the expected rent loss by investing the amount received up front at a conservative or safe rate of return. These funds would have to be in a relatively safe investment in order to be sure the money was available to cover the rent loss. Thus, the interest rate earned on these funds would be relatively low.
Figure 2 summarizes the discount rates for the below-market occupancy case. The point of the discussion is that in this case the rent loss is discounted at a lower rate, and the income based on projected income from occupancy due to existing leases and projected rent-up of space would have to be discounted at a higher rate. The weighted average of these two rates is the one that would apply to the income as if stabilized at market occupancy. The value of the income as if stabilized at market level is equal to the value of the actual income from below-market occupancy plus the value of the rent loss. Note that Figure 2 assumes multitenancy, with the gradual absorption of vacant space and the gradual reduction in the income loss.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Considering the same example in Case I, assume the rent loss was due to below-market occupancy and not due to below-market rents. In addition, assume, this time, that about 20% of the vacant space will be absorbed each year. The fee simple value would be the same and the rent differential would be the same. However, in this case the rent loss should be discounted at a safe rate, here 6%. The valuation of the rent differential would be as shown in Table 5.
In this case, the value of the rent loss is $73,084, and thus the indicated value of the leased fee estate is $926,916 ($1,000,000 - 73,084 = $926,916). What does this value say about the leased fee's internal rate of return? This is indicated in Table 6.
The weighted average cost of capital supports the valuation:
Leased fee component 93% x 12.234% = 0.114 Rent differential component 7% x 6.000% = 0.004 Weighted average cost of capital 0.118
Note that the leased fee income in this example includes both the income from existing leased space plus the projected income from lease of vacant space (as shown by the rising curve in the middle portion of Figure 2). The exact rate at which this income will increase as space is leased is relatively uncertain.
It may be useful to think of the income from existing leases (prior to new leasing) as about the same risk as if the space were fully leased (fee simple). Because the income from new leasing of space is riskier and must be discounted at a higher rate, the rent differential in Figure 2 must be discounted at a lower rate so that the average of these two rates is about the same as the rate that would be applied to the fee simple estate. Again the conclusion is that the rate must be lower for the rent loss than for the fee simple estate.
Case III--Above-Market Rent
Intuitively we know that a property with above-market rent should be worth more than the same property if it were leased at market terms. Yet greater risk is involved in collecting the rent, and therefore, a higher discount rate is appropriate. How much greater is the question. The danger is in inflating the discount rate to the point that the property is worth less than the fee simple value. As in the other two cases, this can be avoided by focusing on the rent differential.
Figure 3 summarizes the relationship between the discount rates for the above-market rent case. In this case, there is no balance between a high-risk and low-risk condition. The rent differential (income bonus) would be discounted at a higher rate, and the actual income itself from existing leases would also be discounted at a higher rate than the fee simple rate. In this case, the weighted average recognizes that the excess rent value must be deducted from the leased fee value in order to arrive at the fee simple value. The value of the income as if stabilized at market level is equal to the value of the actual above-market income from existing leases, less the value of the bonus rent. The rent differential created by above-market rent is more risky for exactly the same reasons as those for below-market rents.
Continuing the same example from Case I, assume that the same property is under a five-year lease that generates a net income of $11.90 per square foot, increasing by 2% per year. In this case, rollover of space is ignored. Recognizing that the rent differential uncertainty demands a risk premium leads to the conclusion that the discount rate associated with the rent differential must be greater than that applied to the market income stream. If in this case a rate of 18% is appropriate, then the value of the rent differential is calculated as indicated in Table 7.
The value of the property indicated by this approach is the fee simple value ($1,000,000) plus the value of the rent differential ($61,441), or $1,061,441. Is this a reasonable conclusion? Only if the resultant discount rate for the leased fee estate is greater than the fee simple rate, which is indicated in Table 8.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
The calculations that follow indicate that the leased fee estate value produces a 12.245% internal rate of return, which is greater than the 12% fee simple yield rate. The weighted average cost of capital supports the valuation:
Leased fee component 106.1% x 12.245% = 0.1299 Rent differential component -6.1% x 18.000% = 0.0110 Weighted average cost of capital 0.1189
Again, the weighted average (11.89%) does not precisely equate to the fee simple yield rate (12%), but the approximation confirms the relationship and can itself be used as a test of reasonableness.
Case IV--Above-Market Occupancy Rate
An above-market occupancy rate may also occur for properties during a recessionary market. Existing leases may keep occupancy rates above market for properties with longer-term leases that do not roll over until well after the recession has begun and market occupancy rates have fallen. Once the leases become due they may not be renewed--assuming the tenants have not already defaulted. The tenants may also demand lower rents at lease renewal or may go somewhere else with lower rents. In either case income drops. This suggests that we would handle above-market occupancy similarly to the way discussed for above-market rents, i.e., a higher discount rate for both the leased fee and the additional rental income.
Conclusion
The common problem of valuing a leased fee estate with occupancy characteristics significantly different from the market is often further complicated by the lack of true comparables. Since cash flow discounting is the preferred valuation technique, the lack of empirical evidence on a discount rate is troublesome.
This article shows that the dangers of over- and undervaluing a leased fee estate can be minimized by first focusing on the fee simple (stabilized) value and then adjusting that value to account for the impact of the rent differential. In each of the four cases presented, knowledge of the relationship between the rent differential and the fee simple discount rates ensures the proper treatment of the cash flows. This can lead to more reliable and defensible value conclusions. It also provides tests of reasonableness for the discount rate if projected income for the leased fee estate is discounted. The key is to have discount rates for the various income streams that are internally consistent as discussed in this article.
In a volatile market any of the cases described in this article may apply, and perhaps more than one for the same property. The fact that an entire market may be experiencing the same symptoms does not diminish the need to account for the nonmarket occupancy of a particular property. In any and all cases, the thought process described in this article should provide guidance in the critical valuation step of selecting an appropriate discount rate.
Web Connections
Internet resources suggested by the Lum Library
Building Owners and Managers Association International
http://www.boma.org/Pages/default.aspx
CB Richard Ellis--Research
http://www.cbre.com/USA/Research
International Facility Management Association
http://www.ifma.org/
Jones Lang LaSalle--Research
http://www.us.am.joneslanglasalle.com/unitedstates/EN-US/Pages/ Research.aspx
NAIOP, Commercial Real Estate Development Association http://www.naiop.org/
National Association of Realtors--Commercial Real Estate Research
http://www.realtor.org/research/research/reportscommercial
Studley--Research
http://www.studley.com/page.ww?name=Research+%26+Ideas§ion= Research+%26+Ideas
An earlier version of this article appeared in The Appraisal Journal (April 2003): 136-144 and (July 2003): 282.
by Richard L. Parli, MAI, and Jeffrey D. Fisher, PhD
(1.) In this discussion, the vacancy issue for fee simple estate valuation is ignored. The term to describe this might best be occupied fee simple since fee simple implies no lease obligations. For further clarification on this issue, see David C. Lennhoff, "Fee Simple? Hardly," The Appraisal Journal (October 1997): 400-402.
(2.) In this discussion, the term occupancy can refer to either occupancy rates or occupancy rents.
(3.) Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2008), 455.
(4.) In theory, above-market occupancy can exist and likewise produce a rent differential, e.g., 100% occupancy. Treatment of this situation may be appropriate through an adjustment to the vacancy and credit loss factor after consideration of tenant quality.
(5.) Below-market occupancy could also be a result of the project being newly developed or due to poor management.
(6.) What is important to realize is that it is the income from projected leasing of occupied space that makes this more risky than the case of a below-market lease. The income from existing tenants is relatively certain as discussed in the first case. We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the importance of distinguishing between the risk of existing tenants versus the risk of space absorption in this case.
(7.) The value attributed to a leasehold estate may or may not be the same as the present value of the rent loss so we are not calling this difference a leasehold value in the discussion.
(8.) A developer who is selling a project sometimes guarantees that a certain level of occupancy will be achieved or the developer will cover the losses.
Richard L. Parli, MAI, is president of Parli Appraisal, Inc., a full-service real estate appraisal firm in Fairfax, Virginia. He is a regular contributor to The Appraisal Journal and has been involved in the development of four courses for the Appraisal Institute, all dealing with market analysis and highest and best use. He has an MBA in finance from the Pennsylvania State University and is a member of the Real Estate Counseling Group of America. Contact: [email protected]
Jeffrey D. Fisher, PhD, is the Dunn Professor of Real Estate at Indiana University and is the director of the Benecki Center for Real Estate Studies. He has published extensively in a variety of journals including The Appraisal Journal, Real Estate Economics, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Journal of Real Estate Research, and others. He has also published several textbooks including Real Estate Finance and Investments, and Income Property Valuation. He is a member of the Real Estate Counseling Group of America. Contact: [email protected]
Table 1 Fee Simple Value Year 1 2 3 Market Income $100,000 $102,000 $104,040 Reversion Total Fee Simple Cash Flow $100,000 $102,000 $104,040 PV Factor @ 12.00% 0.89286 0.79719 0.71178 PV of Cash Flow $89,286 $81,314 $74,054 Fee Simple Value $1,000,000 Year 4 5 6 Market Income $106,121 $108,243 $110,408 Reversion $1,104,080 Total Fee Simple Cash Flow $106,121 $1,212,323 PV Factor @ 12.00% 0.63552 0.56743 PV of Cash Flow $67,442 $687,905 Fee Simple Value Table 2 Contract Rent Value--Below-Market Rent Year 1 2 3 4 Realized Income $72,500 $79,785 $87,216 $94,795 Reversion Total Leased Cash Flow $72,500 $79,785 $87,216 $94,795 RV Factor @ 12.00% 0.89286 0.79719 0.71178 0.63552 PV of Cash Flow 64,732 $63,604 $62,079 $60,244 Indicated Value $935,319 Year 5 6 Realized Income $102,526 $110,408 Reversion $1,104,080 Total Leased Cash Flow $1,206,606 RV Factor @ 12.00% 0.56743 PV of Cash Flow $684,661 Indicated Value Table 3 Rent Differential Valuation--Below-Market Rent Year 1 2 3 4 Market Income $100,000 $102,000 $104,040 $106,121 Realized Income ($72,500) ($79,785) ($87,216) ($94,795) Difference $27,500 $22,215 $16,824 $11,326 PV Factor @ 18.00% 0.84746 0.71818 0.60863 0.51579 PV of Cash Flow $23,305 $15,954 $10,240 $5,842 Total Present Value $57,840 Year 5 6 Market Income $108,243 $110,408 Realized Income ($102,526) Difference $5,717 PV Factor @ 18.00% 0.43711 PV of Cash Flow $2,499 Total Present Value Table 4 Leased Fee AnalysismBelow-Market Rent Target Value $942,160 Year 1 2 3 4 Realized Income $72,500 $79,785 $87,216 $94,795 Reversion Total Leased Fee Cash Flow $72,500 $79,785 $87,216 $94,795 PV of Cash Flow @ IRR 11.811% $64,841 $63,819 $62,393 $60,651 Concluded Value $942,160 Target Value Year 5 Realized Income $102,526 Reversion $1,104,080 Total Leased Fee Cash Flow $1,206,606 PV of Cash Flow @ IRR 11.811% $690,455 Concluded Value Table 5 Rent Differential Valuation--Due to Vacancy Year 1 2 3 4 Market Income $100,000 $102,000 $104,040 $106,121 Realized Income ($72,500) ($79,785) ($87,216) ($94,795) Difference $27,500 $22,215 $16,824 $11,326 PV Factor @ 6.00% 0.94340 0.89000 0.83962 0.79209 PV of Cash Flow $25,944 $19,771 $14,126 $8,971 Total Present Value $73,084 Year 5 6 Market Income $108,243 $110,408 Realized Income ($102,526) Difference $5,717 PV Factor @ 6.00% 0.74726 PV of Cash Flow $4,272 Total Present Value Table 6 Leased Fee Analysis--Below-Market Occupancy Target Value $926,916 Year 1 2 3 4 Realized Income $72,500 $79,785 $87,216 $94,795 Reversion Total Leased Fee Cash Flow $72,500 $79,785 $87,216 $94,795 PV of Cash Flow @ IRR 12.234% $64,597 $63,339 $61,691 $59,743 Concluded Value $926,916 Target Value Year 5 Realized Income $102,526 Reversion $1,104,080 Total Leased Fee Cash Flow $1,206,606 PV of Cash Flow @ IRR 12.234% $677,547 Concluded Value Table 7 Rent Differential Valuation--Above-Market Rent Year 1 2 3 4 Contract Income $119,000 $121,380 $123,808 $126,284 Market Rent $100,000 $102,000 $104,040 $106,121 Rent Differential $19,000 $19,380 $19,768 $20,163 PV Factor @ 18.00% 0.84746 0.71818 0.60863 0.51579 PV of Cash Flow $16,102 $13,918 $12,031 $10,400 Total Present Value $61,441 Year 5 Contract Income $128,809 Market Rent $108,243 Rent Differential $20,566 PV Factor @ 18.00% 0.43711 PV of Cash Flow $8,990 Total Present Value Table 8 Leased Fee Analysis--Above-Market Rent Target Value $1,061,441 Year 1 2 3 Realized Income $119,000 $121,380 $123,808 Reversion Total Leased Fee Cash Flow $119,000 $121,380 $123,808 PV of Cash Flow @ IRR 12.245% $106,018 $96,342 $87,548 Concluded Value $1,061,441 Target Value Year 4 5 Realized Income $126,284 $128,809 Reversion $1,104,080 Total Leased Fee Cash Flow $126,284 $1,232,889 PV of Cash Flow @ IRR 12.245% $79,558 $691,975 Concluded Value
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Parli, Richard L.; Fisher, Jeffrey D. |
|---|---|
| Publication: | Appraisal Journal |
| Article Type: | Case study |
| Geographic Code: | 1USA |
| Date: | Jan 1, 2010 |
| Words: | 5289 |
| Previous Article: | The home valuation code of conduct and its potential impacts. |
| Next Article: | When data collide. |
| Topics: | |