Basel III: Gold to be considered for Tier 1 status

benjamen · May 31, 2012

http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page103855?oid=152291&sn=Detail&pid=102055

"The Basel Committee for Bank Supervision (or BCBS) as part of the BIS are arguably the highest authority in banking supervision and it is their role to define capital requirements through the forthcoming Basel III rules.

In short, they are meeting to consider making gold a Tier 1 asset for commercial banks with 100% weighting rather than a Tier 3 asset with just a 50% risk weighting as it does today."

This would be incredibly bullish for gold if this happens. Basically it would provide incentive for every bank on the planet to hold gold!

:clap:

ancona · May 31, 2012

I think it's hilarious that it isn't already considered a tier I asset. What a fucking joke these banksters are.

benjamen · May 31, 2012

ancona said:
I think it's hilarious that it isn't already considered a tier I asset. What a fucking joke these banksters are.

I don't get it, why would they make a "barberous relic" a Tier 1 asset?!

:rotflmbo:

pmbug · May 31, 2012

benjamen said:
I don't get it, why would they make a "barberous relic" a Tier 1 asset?!

That's easy.... Tradition!

bushi · May 31, 2012

...I was about to post a link to Tuesday's Capital Account, with John Butler, referring to that possible development, and the influence that gold not being Tier 1 fin instrument, has on the Gold price suppression. It also ties quite nicely with what our own swissaustrian said about the "liquidity drying up in the markets", thus enforcing gold sales - to raise liquidity.

In two words: regulators in Yurp, have risen the bar for the Tier 1 reserves -> thus forcing the banks to raise some more capital to comply -> thus commercial banks are selling some of their gold, to implement the reserve requirements. Guess who's buying. Central banks . Erm, shall I say, regulators themselves??

That is a very, very short version, I'd recommend to take a look at the whole edition and listen to the guy, he is describing very convincing dynamics in this regard - that would even play out to some degree, even without the manipulations - and why at the end of that "tighter" controls, it will most likely catapult gold significantly. Not to mention if it was accepted as a Tier 1 - all of the sudden, it would be competing on the level playground against government bonds (!). This is why it might not get implemented - these government folks are stupid, but not THAT stupid, I'd say, as to allow shooting themselves not only in the foot, but rather in the head -as their source of cheap credit is concerned.

kjansen1969 · Jun 1, 2012

Gold can perform two jobs that other currencies or any other financial instruments can't do; gold acts as a safe haven in times of turmoil. Gold has acted, for the last couple of thousand years, as a means to preserve purchasing power. In 1913 (the year the US Federal Reserve was born) the US dollar was well a dollar, gold was US$20 an ounce. Today, at almost the 100 year anniversary of the Fed the dollar has lost 95 percent of its purchasing power and gold is $1600 an ounce.

If gold is made a Tier 1 Capital asset, banks could operate with far less equity capital than is normally required. Gold would be the new backstop for debt, currencies and bank equity capital. And if done so, institutional investments will shoot up gold prices very soon...

mike · Jun 2, 2012

Seems like a ploy to get people to let banks hold gold for them, so they can loan it out, like they do with paper. If you read the fine print, it'll probably also state that the gold isn't really yours anymore.

Never trust the banks!

ancona · Jun 2, 2012

mike said:
Seems like a ploy to get people to let banks hold gold for them, so they can loan it out, like they do with paper. If you read the fine print, it'll probably also state that the gold isn't really yours anymore.

Never trust the banks!

Absolutely spot on Mike! Well said man, well said. Never ever trust a bank. They are simply corporations working in their own self interests. Nothing more and nothing less. They no more have your best interests in mind than a burglar breaking in to your home does. They are profit centers and nothing matters to them but making more and more money.

benjamen · Jun 2, 2012

ancona said:
Absolutely spot on Mike! Well said man, well said. Never ever trust a bank. They are simply corporations working in their own self interests. Nothing more and nothing less. They no more have your best interests in mind than a burglar breaking in to your home does. They are profit centers and nothing matters to them but making more and more money.

The same could be said for any company. This is the heart of capitalism. Everyone is out to help themselves.

The problem is when you can pay off, I mean lobby, politicians to pass laws to help you or your company.

ancona · Jun 2, 2012

benjamen said:
The same could be said for any company. This is the heart of capitalism. Everyone is out to help themselves.

The problem is when you can pay off, I mean lobby, politicians to pass laws to help you or your company.

Agreed, but the point I was making is never ever trust them to "hold" something for you.....ever. As was pointed out, the devil is in the details, and usually in number three font at the bottom of page 184 of some contract you have to sign.

bushi · Jun 2, 2012

...or when contracts are not enforced, law is not being executed, and no one goes to jail. Otherwise, I wouldn't have any issues, NOT trusting the banks, yet still doing business with them -as long as contracts are honoured/can be enforced, rules are not being bent, and stupid or crooked are getting what they deserved, instead of bailouts or non-prosecution.

Wysyłane z mojego GT-I9100 za pomocą Tapatalk 2

ancona · Jun 2, 2012

Bushi,
Unfortunately, the enforcement of CDS are primarily the underwriters of the very same contractrs. These guys are teh rulemakers and the gamers at the same time.

mike · Jun 6, 2012

benjamen said:
This is the heart of capitalism. Everyone is out to help themselves.

No, banks are counterfeiters running a ponzi (totally illegal and immoral on both counts) and they have a government-sanctioned monopoly on their counterfeiting, ponzi operation. They also rob us through inflation, while privatizing their profits and socializing their losses via a coercive government.

None of this has anything to do with Capitalism. Capitalism is about mutually beneficial contracts between consenting parties, property rights, and the rule of law.

benjamen · Jun 20, 2012

Update from the FDIC:
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2012/fil12027.html

"The following exposures would receive a zero percent risk weight under the proposal:

•Cash;
•Gold bullion;
•Direct and unconditional claims on the U.S. government, its central bank, or a U.S. government agency;
•Exposures unconditionally guaranteed by the U.S. government, its central bank, or a U.S. government agency;
•Claims on certain supranational entities (such as the International Monetary Fund) and certain multilateral development banking organizations
•Claims on and exposures unconditionally guaranteed by sovereign entities that meet certain criteria (as discussed below)."

pmbug · Jun 20, 2012

Tradition!

...
Q. Treatment of Collateralized Transactions

The proposal allows banking organizations to recognize the risk mitigating benefits of financial collateral in risk-weighted assets, and defines financial collateral to include:

•cash on deposit at the bank or third-party custodian;
•gold;
•investment grade long-term securities (excluding resecuritizations);
•investment grade short-term instruments (excluding resecuritizations);
•publicly-traded equity securities;
•publicly-traded convertible bonds; and,
•money market mutual fund shares; and other mutual fund shares if a price is quoted daily.

In all cases the banking organization would be required to have a perfected, first priority interest in the financial collateral.
...

swissaustrian · Jun 20, 2012

Gold bullion, hopefully not paper.

pmbug · Jun 20, 2012

swissaustrian said:
Gold bullion, hopefully not paper.

"In all cases the banking organization would be required to have a perfected, first priority interest in the financial collateral."

That doesn't sound like most paper to me, but I'm guessing that paper claims to "fully allocated" gold do meet the criteria - at least until someone attempts to redeem the paper claims for the (re)hypothecated physical gold.

swissaustrian · Jun 20, 2012

"first priority interest in the collateral" could also be JPM's interest in the gold of GLD for example. In the end the little guy will always lose. Otherwise these rule changes wouldn't be considered.

pmbug · Jun 20, 2012

...
Way back, on October 6, 2011, I wrote an article that addressed the probable return of gold to reserve asset status, in the private banking world. Now, the first steps are being taken. Once these rules are passed into law, for example, gold bullion will fulfill bank capital requirements better than Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac bonds. This reflects the real world reality. The proposal is a reform that could prevent future financial instability.

Perhaps, the most interesting thing about the notice, is its choice of words to describe an unspecified US "central bank". Why describe the central bank in an amorphous manner? Why not refer directly to Federal Reserve? Perhaps, many people, in high places, including the top people on the Federal Reserve Board itself, have concluded, as I have, that Fed will not survive this crisis.

The most important thing from the standpoint of precious metals investors is that gold is slated to return to the center of the financial universe. Under this joint proposal, co-sponsored by FDIC, OCC and the Federal Reserve, gold will once again be a zero risk asset in the private banking world. It has been legally barred from that most important of positions for 80 years now. That return will have profound implications.

Gold's return to the top tier in banking assets will result in a big increase in demand. Increased demand will eventually be reflected in an increased price. Other precious metals, like silver (iShares Silver Trust ETF: SLV) and platinum, will probably be floated alongside, because the price of both are now, and have always been, intrinsically linked to the price of gold.
...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/668...rn-gold-to-the-center-of-the-banking-universe

benjamen · Jun 28, 2012

Article on the implications of this change:
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/is-gold-a-zero-risk-financial-asset.html/

“A key reason why gold has not been acting like a safe-haven asset in recent months is because banks are so capital impaired that they are scrambling to reduce their holdings of risky assets in favour of so-called ‘zero-risk-weighted’ "

This is also one of the big reasons precious metals took a big hit in the 2008 crash. This is making me want to pick up some gold!

pmbug · Nov 15, 2012

Friday, November 9, 2012, 2:58pm CST

Federal banking regulators today announced they will delay the Basel III capital requirements.
...
Many industry participants have expressed concern that they may be subject to a final regulatory capital rule on Jan. 1, without sufficient time to understand the rule or to make necessary systems changes, the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said in a joint press release
...
The federal agencies said they haven’t determined new implementation dates and associated transition periods.

http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2012/11/09/feds-to-delay-basel-iii-requirements.html

Press release:

The U.S. federal banking agencies issued three notices of proposed rulemaking in June that would revise and replace the current regulatory capital rules. The proposals suggested an effective date of January 1, 2013. Many industry participants have expressed concern that they may be subject to a final regulatory capital rule on January 1, 2013, without sufficient time to understand the rule or to make necessary systems changes.

In light of the volume of comments received and the wide range of views expressed during the comment period, the agencies do not expect that any of the proposed rules would become effective on January 1, 2013. As members of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the U.S. agencies take seriously our internationally agreed timing commitments regarding the implementation of Basel III and are working as expeditiously as possible to complete the rulemaking process. As with any rule, the agencies will take operational and other considerations into account when determining appropriate implementation dates and associated transition periods.

http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2012/pr12130.html

swissaustrian · Nov 15, 2012

And this was announced two days after the election.
I'm looking forward to more post-election surprises.

pmbug · Nov 17, 2012

On November 9, 2012, the US federal banking agencies released a joint press release indefinitely delaying the January 1, 2013 implementation date for their proposed rules that would revise and replace the current regulatory capital rules according to Basel III and certain provisions of Dodd-Frank
......
Meanwhile, on November 9, 2012, the EU issued a press release stating that it still plans to meet the January 1, 2013 deadline, despite industry concerns that the January 1 deadline may be unrealistic.

http://us.practicallaw.com/8-522-3973

SHANGHAI: China will not postpone implementation of tougher global bank capital rules despite a delay in compliance by U.S. banks, the official Shanghai Securities News reported on Tuesday, citing unidentified sources.
...

http://articles.economictimes.india...el-iii-tougher-rules-future-taxpayer-bailouts

pmbug · Nov 19, 2012

Decent summary of the Basel III call for changing gold to tier one status:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1016161-basel-iii-and-gold

benjamen · Nov 19, 2012

PMBug said:
http://us.practicallaw.com/8-522-3973

http://articles.economictimes.india...el-iii-tougher-rules-future-taxpayer-bailouts

Fun fact:

One of the reason U.S. banks are dragging their heels on this one is because of the reserve requirement on highly levered loans. Once Basel III comes into effect, most loans with less than 20% down will go away.

pmbug · Nov 19, 2012

If that's the case, Basel III will never be (fully) implemented in the USA.

mike · Nov 19, 2012

benjamen said:
Fun fact:

One of the reason U.S. banks are dragging their heels on this one is because of the reserve requirement on highly levered loans. Once Basel III comes into effect, most loans with less than 20% down will go away.

Go away for who? The loan-taker?

benjamen · Nov 19, 2012

mike said:
Go away for who? The loan-taker?

The banks would no longer offer them, or more likely make them much more expensive.

ancona · Nov 19, 2012

That is already happening with private loans here in Central Florida anyway. I dare you to apply for a mortgage with less than 15 - 20% of your own hide in the game. The credit union already halved my loan line [not that I use it, but it looks good on my credit statement] and reduced my unsecured credit by a third.

bushi · Nov 19, 2012

benjamen said:
Once Basel III comes into effect, most loans with less than 20% down will go away.

...am I the only one, who sees that requirement as EXTREMELY bearish for house prices, if implemented?

Putting up 20% of price of 500k house, is something entirely different, than putting up 20% of a 100k one (difficult enough for many...).

I personally think, that "no-significant upfront payment required" rule, is one that is MOST responsible for pushing house prices up, artificially. And it is putting pressure on prudent people (artificial competition on houses and mortgages from non-prudent ones).

ancona · Nov 19, 2012

I see it too Bushi, and as far as I am concerned it is the thing we need in banking to control these fuckers. Loaning huge sums of money to folks with little or no skin in the game is insane.

benjamen · Nov 19, 2012

ancona said:
I see it too Bushi, and as far as I am concerned it is the thing we need in banking to control these fuckers. Loaning huge sums of money to folks with little or no skin in the game is insane.

If left to their own devices, no bank would provide these risky loans (at least the ones that would last more than a few years). There is a clear downtrend in rates of default in mortgages that the buyer puts at least 20% down. Interestingly, banks would probably not even do 30 year loans in a free market due to the long duration interest rate risks involved; anyone old enough to remember 10-20 year mortgages being the norm?

This leaves us with why any bank that wants to remain in business long term would do such a thing. Enter the perverse incentives of the U.S. government. This is the government that decided that it is not okay for a bank to refuse to provide mortgage loans to citizens simply because they don't have the financial means to repay said loan. Home ownership must be encouraged for every family in the country regardless of income, actually having a job, credit score, or other silly financial metrics.

Enter VA and FHA type loans! These program turn the banks away from the position of a lender and towards a position of paperwork filler out guy. All the bank does is lend to whoever the government thinks should have a loan and then immediately turn around and sell that loan to Frannie, Freddie, ect. Everyone must have a home loan with 3-4% down at most!

If the bank doesn't like this system, then good luck getting that governmental approval to expand your bank to a new state. Good luck passing that next FINRA, SEC, or FED inspection!

When the whole system blows up in their faces, the government blames the mean ole bankers! It is loudly declared that the problem is to big to fail banks. The obvious solution is for the government to bail out the bigger banks, prod them to merge into fewer, even bigger mega banks. Follow this up with the awesome Dodd-Frank act that is effectively killing medium sized banks, awesome! If your small enough Dodd-Frank doesn't apply to you. Once you are big enough, the immense cost of all the new regulations makes it hard to bear until you are much larger, which is prompting a lot of medium banks to begin to merge into bigger banks!

dontdeBasemebro · Nov 26, 2012

So a basic question I have is:

If Basel III is coming orur way, why haven't we seen the major impacts already happening?

With gold becoming Tier 1 I would expect everyone to be jumping on it. Maybe the smart ones are already, though I would expect gold prices to be moving up more than they are now.

I agree with bushi that this should really clobber real estate. On the one hand, people who are solvent and looking for a house would want to wait until prices drop once nobody else can get a mortgage. On the other, anyone who is smart enough to know this and not solvent enough to put 20% down would be rushing out to buy now.

Are the banks still pushing cheapy loans while they can and then plan to collect the collateral once Basel hits?

pmbug · Nov 27, 2012

dontdeBasemebro said:
...
If Basel III is coming orur way, why haven't we seen the major impacts already happening?
...

I think the public is still largely ignorant. Why haven't hedge funds moved the needle? I'm guessing they are buying paper gold (etfs) if they are buying any at all (ie. not physical and not futures contracts). That isn't going to affect the spot price or cause any supply strain. There is some evidence that banks are shoring up gold holdings, but it's hard to say if it's real, physical gold, or rehypothecated (LBMA) claims.

pmbug · Jan 10, 2013

Jim Sinclair said:
The entire reason for the agreed delay of the Basel Three liquidity requirements is the Western financial system’s balance sheets. They are cartoons because of FASB blessing of debatable values for paper assets such as OTC derivatives with absolutely no market relationship.

Put succinctly, the Western world financial system simply does not have the ability in terms of real liquidity to meet Basel Three requirements. That is the entire story. The tomes written on this should be but one line – bankrupts cannot meet liquidity requirement now or in two years from now.
...

http://www.jsmineset.com/2013/01/09/the-reasoning-behind-basel-three-liquidity-requirement-delays/

pmbug · Apr 29, 2013

... the Terminating Bailouts for Taxpayer Fairness Act, emerged last Wednesday; its co-sponsors are Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, and David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. ...

For starters, the bill would create an entirely new, transparent and ungameable set of capital rules for the nation’s banks — in other words, a meaningful rainy-day fund. Enormous institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Citibank, would have to hold common stockholder equity of at least 15 percent of their consolidated assets to protect against large losses. That’s almost double the 8 percent of risk-weighted assets required under the capital rules established by Basel III, the latest version of the byzantine international system created by regulators and central bankers.
...
The bill prevents another type of fudging by requiring off-balance-sheet assets and liabilities and derivatives positions to be included in a bank’s consolidated assets. In addition, the capital cushion that a bank would hold under the bill is liquid and can absorb losses easily. This capital measure would be more transparent than the current system and could not be manipulated.

In a truly courageous move, Brown-Vitter would require United States financial regulators to abandon Basel III. An earlier version of Basel did nothing to prevent the financial crisis and encouraged banks to binge on leverage.
...
Brown-Vitter has other attributes as well. It would bar bank regulators from giving nondepository institutions access to Federal Reserve lending programs. And it would make it harder for bank holding companies to move assets or liabilities from nonbanking affiliates, like derivatives bets held at a brokerage unit, to the protective umbrella of the parent company that might be rescued by taxpayers in a financial disaster.

Thomas M. Hoenig, the vice chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, supports the bill. ...

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/b...-door-on-bank-bailouts.html?ref=business&_r=0

No word on how this bill might affect gold being considered a tier one asset.

pmbug · Aug 22, 2013

I was just watching Fox Business News (FBN) and they were showing someone interviewing Jack Lew (current Treasury Secretary). He (Mr. Lew) was talking about a recent meeting he had at the White House with the President and "market regulators". While talking about their progress on implementing Dodd-Frank requirements, Mr. Lew said (and I'm paraphrasing):

We checked to see where were were versus Basel III - whether we were above, below, etc. And we're ahead.

Ie. the USA is ahead of schedule (or ahead of the rest of the world) in complying with Basel III requirements.

WTF?

pmbug · Aug 22, 2013

I did some searching around and found this (published Aug. 6):

New rules from the Federal Reserve will significantly alter how banks account for taxes on some assets, especially at large institutions.

New standards change the math behind whether taxes can be deferred on some items when banks compute how much capital they have. If deferrals are removed, the result can be a significant reduction in the size of a bank’s balance sheet -- possibly making it look less stable, Bloomberg BNA reported.

The rules, which will force companies to perform a far more complex calculation of deferred tax assets and liabilities, are part of the heightened capital standards for U.S. banks known as Basel III -- rules drawn up by global regulators intended to make the financial system safer after the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. They are meant to help community lenders, while taking a stricter line with large banks.

“The new focus of tax planning will be to effectively manage a bank’s deferred tax position to enhance regulatory capital,” said Liz L’Hommedieu, KPMG LLP’s tax managing director for its Washington National Tax practice.

The new regime goes into effect Jan. 1 for the largest banks -- those with assets greater than $250 billion or with more than $10 billion in foreign exposures, such as Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan (JPM) Chase & Co. or Wells Fargo (WFC) & Co. Smaller banks have until 2015.

The idea behind the rules, issued last month, is to provide more uniformity in the 27 countries of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision -- so banks in France, Hong Kong or the U.S. can run comparable analyses of capital profiles, said John Taylor, partner with the Financial Services Tax Practice at EY.
...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-impeded-by-fed-rules-on-basel-iii-taxes.html

Looks like they are still slowly crawling along towards implementing it - at least parts of it. I aloso found this from February:

... the possibility that the Bank of International Settlements would modify the Basel III accord to include gold as a Tier 1 asset. ...

The change as proposed would have gone into effect January of this year. There had been much written about it in the last year so I was surprised not to read anything this year about the change. When I dug around the BIS website I could find no press releases announcing this monumental change in banking. Turns out for good reason. It didn't happen.

From the FAQ's document at the BIS website, page 22 of the PDF:

4.2 Basel II paragraph 145 sets forth a list of eligible financial collateral that includes gold, with a supervisory haircut set to 15% in paragraph 151. To the extent that gold is not included in the revised paragraph 151 under Basel III, industry seeks clarifications in this regard.

Paragraph 145 has not been modified by Basel III and so, gold remains as eligible collateral.

It was an oversight not to include gold in the headings of paragraph 151. Gold is still eligible collateral and it retains the haircut it previously had of 15%.

Click to expand...

I have to admit I'm somewhat confused given my understanding was that gold was valued at 50% prior to Basel III rather than 85% (100%-15% haircut). Regardless, the key words are, "retains the haircut it previously had", meaning the BIS has not officially changed its view on gold. Its interesting that the change did not happen as expected and that it apparently has happened very quietly. ...

http://macrowealthpreservation.blogspot.com/2013/02/bis-rejects-gold-as-tier-1-asset-for-now.html

pmbug · Aug 23, 2013

...
Lenders including UBS AG and HSBC Holdings Plc have warned that plans by global regulators in the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to set minimum collateral requirements for non-centrally cleared swaps trades will prompt a global liquidity squeeze as banks struggle to locate enough securities to satisfy the standards.
...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...on-collateral-asset-reuse-in-repo-trades.html

pmbug · Oct 20, 2015

...
The rules treat physically traded gold the same as other commodities, meaning banks trading the metal would have to carry more cash and cash equivalents as a proportion of their gold exposures to act as a buffer if there is an adverse move in the gold price.

In Basel III's language, gold's liquidity "haircut" is increasing to 85 percent from 50 percent. This percentage is used to help calculate a so-called liquidity buffer known as the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) that all banks must hold from 2018. The higher the figure, the more funding is needed to meet the overall NSFR requirement.

This, the LBMA and other industry bodies argue, makes funding gold transactions for commercial banks difficult and increases the cost of doing business.

"Basel III is a big issue for us at the moment, because we are looking at an increase in costs of up to 300 percent and ... that is a kind of cost that makes you decide to get out of the business," LBMA Chief Executive Ruth Crowell told reporters at a conference in Vienna in Monday.

"And whilst there is not a lot of sympathy for banks, it's the clients of these banks that are going to suffer from that, producers, manufacturers, refiners."

The rules come into full force in 2019, but regulatory and market pressure has prompted lenders to comply sooner.

The LBMA has asked the European Banking Authority (EBA) to reconsider gold as a "high quality, liquid asset."
...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/19/lbma-gold-regulations-idUSL8N12J3CS20151019

So, it seems that we understood it backwards - gold isn't going to be valued at 85%, it's going to be valued at 15%. 85% is the value of cash they need to hold in reserve to cover the value of the gold (in case the market/price crashed).

:doodoo:

Basel III: Gold to be considered for Tier 1 status

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Yellow Jacket

Praying Mantis

Yellow Jacket

Your Host

Ground Beetle

kjansen1969

Ground Beetle

Praying Mantis

Yellow Jacket

Praying Mantis

Ground Beetle

Praying Mantis

Ground Beetle

Yellow Jacket

Your Host

Yellow Jacket

Your Host

Yellow Jacket

Your Host

Yellow Jacket

Your Host

Yellow Jacket

Your Host

Your Host

Yellow Jacket

Your Host

Ground Beetle

Yellow Jacket

Praying Mantis

Ground Beetle

Praying Mantis

Yellow Jacket

Big Eyed Bug

Your Host

Your Host

Your Host

Your Host

Your Host

Your Host

Your Host

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency