If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   Facebook falls another 8%, considers buying back all its shares and going private   (marketwatch.com) divider line 80
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3843 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 May 2012 at 10:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-22 10:29:41 AM
wellbye.jpg
 
2012-05-22 10:42:30 AM
So how long until Zuckerberg dumps all his Facebook stock and moves to Aruba with his wife and their live-in mistress?
 
2012-05-22 10:44:06 AM
Of course it is, with Zuckerburg maintaining 60% of the voting stock, the investment houses can't stack the board of directors, nor can they fire him.
 
2012-05-22 10:46:51 AM
Get out, Mark! Get out now!
 
2012-05-22 10:47:01 AM
Wow, the investment community and the gullible average joe just showed their ass to the whole world...again...while they partied like it was 1999.

Again.

Didn't see that one coming *snerk*
 
2012-05-22 10:53:58 AM
Hedge funds set this up to fail. They will profit handsomely. Don't trust stock brokers, Wall Street, stock markets. It is all an inside game and the little investors always get suckered. Politicians in power now are most linked to these scams. They think you are stupid.
 
2012-05-22 10:54:25 AM
Hey Mark? How's that $104b market cap doing for you? Oh wait, it's down to $88b.

Seems to me that in an attempt to show how big a penis he has, Mark insisted on such a large IPO. Unfortunately, it's deflating faster than a Macy's balloon after the Thanksgiving Day parade.
 
2012-05-22 10:55:25 AM
Did the retail investors even have a chance to buy this thing before it started tanking?
 
2012-05-22 10:57:39 AM
I would still pay $16 a share, but not a nickel more.
 
2012-05-22 10:58:16 AM
More like "Faceplant".

/Amirite?
 
2012-05-22 11:03:07 AM
I think we can all agree that after approximately two days of trading, Facebook is now dead.

LONG LIVE GOOGLE BUZZ!
 
2012-05-22 11:08:54 AM

PowerSlacker: Did the retail investors even have a chance to buy this thing before it started tanking?


I managed to buy at $42. I win the idiot prize.

Oh well.
 
2012-05-22 11:10:24 AM
There was some guy who bought his shares for $43, he must be pretty pissed off right now.
 
2012-05-22 11:10:58 AM
It all started to go south when they bought Instagram.
 
2012-05-22 11:13:46 AM

Tom_Slick: Of course it is, with Zuckerburg maintaining 60% of the voting stock, the investment houses can't stack the board of directors, nor can they fire him.


Board composition on a new company is pretty damn lose-lose in my mind.

One the one hand, I think its stupid that founders can rig voting share structures to get the cash from investors while maintaining disproportionate voting rights for themselves.

On the other hand, it sucks to be the founder and see the control of your company completely usurped by ransom board members at any stage (angel/VlutureCapital/public). As we've seen with Bain... the money guys don't give a damn about the business, they just want as much cash back as possible, as fast as possible.
 
2012-05-22 11:15:25 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I would still pay $16 a share, but not a nickel more.


Unless you have a lot of faith in Facebook's future, I still think you'd be getting screwed. As someone who has serious reservations about Facebook's ability to actually monetize its user base, I don't think I'd even consider it until about $8 a share.

Compared to companies like Apple and Google, I just don't see the massively inflated value of this stock... I just don't see how they're going to turn it into something valuable in any reasonable amount of time and I don't see why I should take such a rich plunge on the chance it might happen.

There's just a hundred billion dollars of value in that company.... I don't even think there's a fifth of that...
 
2012-05-22 11:15:34 AM

snoproblem: Wow, the investment community and the gullible average joe just showed their ass to the whole world...again...while they partied like it was 1999.

Again.

Didn't see that one coming *snerk*


Stupid is forever.
 
2012-05-22 11:19:31 AM
Honestly. I would be looking to buy as much of this as I could.


I hate facebook. But in a few years I'm betting the stock will be worth much more.
 
2012-05-22 11:24:27 AM
Maybe people are realizing that there is a product called Adblock Plus that blocks ads. Why spend money on advertising that no one sees.
 
2012-05-22 11:25:08 AM
FB should buy HP's webOS division and rename the company Facepalm.
 
2012-05-22 11:29:10 AM
I'm hoping for $0.75.

/Hate Farking Douchebook.
 
2012-05-22 11:31:37 AM

crab66: Honestly. I would be looking to buy as much of this as I could.


I hate facebook. But in a few years I'm betting the stock will be worth much more.


So, how much are you buying?
 
2012-05-22 11:34:02 AM

crab66: Honestly. I would be looking to buy as much of this as I could.


I hate facebook. But in a few years I'm betting the stock will be worth much more.


I wouldn't touch FB with a ten-foot pole. Even at the current price, it's still a 100 P/E, which is obscene. The growth in users is slowing, the profits are mediocre at best (and falling), and they've never shown an ability to develop actual products beyond FB.

There's a reason GM pulled its ads. FB's business is basically Downs Baby Google.

it shouldn't be selling anywhere north of $8. And even that is generous.
 
2012-05-22 11:36:36 AM
I think we'll see the stock settle in the 14 to 15 range over the next year, making the company worth ~$40B. Facebook's P/E ratio is good enough that they'll still garner significant value, despite only bringing in $1B or so in revenue last year.

I wouldn't invest in them long-term though. The obstacles for further growth are just too significant. I see revenues and growth leveling off even more than they already have. I just hope the Facebook employees are all smart enough to quickly diversify their investments while the stock is still at this high value.
 
2012-05-22 11:41:12 AM

crab66: Honestly. I would be looking to buy as much of this as I could.


I hate facebook. But in a few years I'm betting the stock will be worth much more.


Lol please do. Let us know how that works out for you. In a few years FB will be MySpace. They peaked about 2 years ago.
 
2012-05-22 11:46:58 AM
I wonder how the guy who gambl, er invested, yeah, that's the ticket, his daughter's college fund feels right now.

Well, maybe she's young enough it could go well for him in time.
 
2012-05-22 11:52:43 AM

RickyWilliams'sBong: I wouldn't touch FB with a ten-foot pole. Even at the current price, it's still a 100 P/E, which is obscene. The growth in users is slowing, the profits are mediocre at best (and falling), and they've never shown an ability to develop actual products beyond FB.

There's a reason GM pulled its ads. FB's business is basically Downs Baby Google.


Brutal, but fair.

The thing that strikes me about Google is that there's definitely some serious intelligence in that company. I don't know how they do a lot of the shiat they do, and a lot of the rest strikes me as mind-bendingly hard.

Facebook? Their stuff is mostly just an engineering problem. They got lucky by following a strategy of bringing in college students, but I suspect that Zuckerberg is a one-trick pony. Someone comes up with some new place and it grabs people's attention and Facebook will be pretty much dead in 12 months.
 
2012-05-22 12:04:27 PM

farkeruk: Brutal, but fair.

The thing that strikes me about Google is that there's definitely some serious intelligence in that company. I don't know how they do a lot of the shiat they do, and a lot of the rest strikes me as mind-bendingly hard.

Facebook? Their stuff is mostly just an engineering problem. They got lucky by following a strategy of bringing in college students, but I suspect that Zuckerberg is a one-trick pony. Someone comes up with some new place and it grabs people's attention and Facebook will be pretty much dead in 12 months.


The real difference is that people go to Google.com to look for things. Could be as simple as a quick route to a Wikipedia page, or in many cases they ay be looking for a product. If I'm shopping for house insurance, and Google has some relevant ads about it in my area up, I might click on them.

But people don't do that with Facebook. They go to FB to see what their friends and family are up to. They don't go looking for products. And if a friend mentions a product on FB to check out, what's the first thing you'll do? Google it.

That's FB's problem in a nutshell to me. There's no good mechanism for selling, and no natural integration of the product being sold with the mission of the site. It's just a bunch of status updates with a few ads for stickers and shiat on the side. It looks like a company designed and run by a Politburo of engineers and accountants.
 
2012-05-22 12:11:03 PM

RickyWilliams'sBong: farkeruk: Brutal, but fair.

The thing that strikes me about Google is that there's definitely some serious intelligence in that company. I don't know how they do a lot of the shiat they do, and a lot of the rest strikes me as mind-bendingly hard.

Facebook? Their stuff is mostly just an engineering problem. They got lucky by following a strategy of bringing in college students, but I suspect that Zuckerberg is a one-trick pony. Someone comes up with some new place and it grabs people's attention and Facebook will be pretty much dead in 12 months.

The real difference is that people go to Google.com to look for things. Could be as simple as a quick route to a Wikipedia page, or in many cases they ay be looking for a product. If I'm shopping for house insurance, and Google has some relevant ads about it in my area up, I might click on them.

But people don't do that with Facebook. They go to FB to see what their friends and family are up to. They don't go looking for products. And if a friend mentions a product on FB to check out, what's the first thing you'll do? Google it.

That's FB's problem in a nutshell to me. There's no good mechanism for selling, and no natural integration of the product being sold with the mission of the site. It's just a bunch of status updates with a few ads for stickers and shiat on the side. It looks like a company designed and run by a Politburo of engineers and accountants.


www.jamesjoyce.co.uk
 
2012-05-22 12:14:57 PM

modestlivinglegend: Hedge funds set this up to fail. They will profit handsomely. Don't trust stock brokers, Wall Street, stock markets. It is all an inside game and the little investors always get suckered. Politicians in power now are most linked to these scams. They think you are stupid.


Wow. This sounds like perfect tin-foil hat ranting, except it's true.

Scarey times.
 
2012-05-22 12:17:16 PM

AMonkey'sUncle: I wonder how the guy who gambl, er invested, yeah, that's the ticket, his daughter's college fund feels right now.

Well, maybe she's young enough it could go well for him in time.


Yeah, in a few years when it's back up to $38.50, then we'll see who's laughing.
 
2012-05-22 12:21:34 PM

RickyWilliams'sBong: The real difference is that people go to Google.com to look for things. Could be as simple as a quick route to a Wikipedia page, or in many cases they ay be looking for a product. If I'm shopping for house insurance, and Google has some relevant ads about it in my area up, I might click on them.

But people don't do that with Facebook. They go to FB to see what their friends and family are up to. They don't go looking for products. And if a friend mentions a product on FB to check out, what's the first thing you'll do? Google it.


This pretty much nails it.

Facebook is the equivalent of of a logo on a sports uniform. It has value just not as much as a 'search'..same as fark. For as much as I look at this site I pretty much never click on an ad here. I dont pay $5 a month. I am drews worst nightmare.
 
2012-05-22 12:34:31 PM

MrBallou: modestlivinglegend: Hedge funds set this up to fail. They will profit handsomely. Don't trust stock brokers, Wall Street, stock markets. It is all an inside game and the little investors always get suckered. Politicians in power now are most linked to these scams. They think you are stupid.

Wow. This sounds like perfect tin-foil hat ranting, except it's true.

Scarey times.


Of course it's true. There's nothing in the underlying financials to justify anything close to $38. Might there someday? Sure.

But, having covered Google already, let's go for the other obvious tech comparison: Apple. With Apple, you can say, "Well, I think iPads and iPhones should still grow enormously before the market becomes saturated, and they'll probably leverage that into something involving television down the road." There's growth baked in there, and a history that gives some confidence they'll figure out the next big move.

There's no such thing with regard to FB. Buying at $38 is pure gambling on a company that really isn't all that impressive.

This was nothing but a sweeping of suckers' money.
 
2012-05-22 12:57:23 PM
P/E: 104.8

www.threadbombing.com
 
2012-05-22 01:05:24 PM

thistime: Facebook is the equivalent of of a logo on a sports uniform. It has value just not as much as a 'search'..same as fark. For as much as I look at this site I pretty much never click on an ad here. I dont pay $5 a month. I am drews worst nightmare.


The thing is, those ads may still seep into your unconscious and later influence a buying decision, even if you never click.
 
2012-05-22 01:09:15 PM
The most expensive service Google sells is direct access to the stream of searches people are using. If you think that the information Facebook has gathered about it's users is not at least 10x more valuable than ad space on the site, pass the joint because I want some of it.

Facebook knows more about people than the people themselves do. That's extremely valuable to a marketer if Facebook can mine and package the data in a way they understand. I don't think that supports a P/E of 100, but it is valuable.

Second, Facebook has worked very hard to maintain their network-effect moat. It's not impenetrable, but it's getting stronger. The number of 3rd party websites that integrate with Facebook creates a large barrier to moving to the next big thing. And they're smart enough to buy up competitors that try to sneak into their market from the bottom up, like instagram.

I'm bullish on Facebook, just not P/E 100 bullish.
 
2012-05-22 01:17:57 PM

RickyWilliams'sBong: farkeruk: Brutal, but fair.

The thing that strikes me about Google is that there's definitely some serious intelligence in that company. I don't know how they do a lot of the shiat they do, and a lot of the rest strikes me as mind-bendingly hard.

Facebook? Their stuff is mostly just an engineering problem. They got lucky by following a strategy of bringing in college students, but I suspect that Zuckerberg is a one-trick pony. Someone comes up with some new place and it grabs people's attention and Facebook will be pretty much dead in 12 months.

The real difference is that people go to Google.com to look for things. Could be as simple as a quick route to a Wikipedia page, or in many cases they ay be looking for a product. If I'm shopping for house insurance, and Google has some relevant ads about it in my area up, I might click on them.

But people don't do that with Facebook. They go to FB to see what their friends and family are up to. They don't go looking for products. And if a friend mentions a product on FB to check out, what's the first thing you'll do? Google it.

That's FB's problem in a nutshell to me. There's no good mechanism for selling, and no natural integration of the product being sold with the mission of the site. It's just a bunch of status updates with a few ads for stickers and shiat on the side. It looks like a company designed and run by a Politburo of engineers and accountants.


The simple answer to Facebooks problem is get more eyes looking at their site for longer.

This answer has 2 problems. First they already have a really large user base so unless they can tap into China there isn't much room to grow substantially. Second people already spend a heap of time on facebook so it isn't like they have a problem with dissatisfied users.

So that simple answer can't work. Can they advertise more to current users, probably to some extent and adverts coming to mobiles is a priority. They need to exploit their entrenched user base without pissing them off too much. The other part is to develop more services. Google WAS a search company selling adverts then they realised that ads made money so they developed more services to build their ads into. Maps, Docs, Mail etc and they bought services like Youtube and Android too develop further.

Facebook bought Instagram because it was a threat but also another service they can build their product into (although Instagram was probably taking eyes away from FB photosharing). FB basically needs to expand it range of services if t is going to vastly increase earnings. Premium services would also help. Instead Facebook seems to be going the opposite way with companies exploiting Facebook rather than the other way around. Zynga and Spotify are eating off facebooks plate and their userbases are tied more to those services than Facebook. If anything Facebook is becoming a dumb pipe for every social activity.
 
2012-05-22 01:28:10 PM
farkeruk: The thing that strikes me about Google is that there's definitely some serious intelligence in that company. I don't know how they do a lot of the shiat they do, and a lot of the rest strikes me as mind-bendingly hard.

Facebook? Their stuff is mostly just an engineering problem.


I'm a programmer with over 15 years of experience, I started off doing web based apps in perl (after avoiding coldfusion). These days I work in reporting.

I look at Facebook, and in my head I can think of the code I would need to write to do the different parts of their site, and I figure, a few free weekends and I could pound out the alpha version.

I look at some of the stuff Google pumps out and I think, shiat, first I have to study to figure out WTF they're doing.

// finished a four day training course for search engine theory last week, how these SE guys write weighted tokenization engines that actually run fast amazes me.

// the google search appliance may look like a piece of cheese, but it's actually a black box, there are no user serviceable parts inside :P

ikeif.net

/not ours ... ours is sitting unused in a lab (we needed more control than the GSA gave us).
 
2012-05-22 01:54:23 PM

RickyWilliams'sBong: MrBallou: modestlivinglegend: Hedge funds set this up to fail. They will profit handsomely. Don't trust stock brokers, Wall Street, stock markets. It is all an inside game and the little investors always get suckered. Politicians in power now are most linked to these scams. They think you are stupid.

Wow. This sounds like perfect tin-foil hat ranting, except it's true.

Scarey times.

Of course it's true. There's nothing in the underlying financials to justify anything close to $38. Might there someday? Sure.

But, having covered Google already, let's go for the other obvious tech comparison: Apple. With Apple, you can say, "Well, I think iPads and iPhones should still grow enormously before the market becomes saturated, and they'll probably leverage that into something involving television down the road." There's growth baked in there, and a history that gives some confidence they'll figure out the next big move.

There's no such thing with regard to FB. Buying at $38 is pure gambling on a company that really isn't all that impressive.

This was nothing but a sweeping of suckers' money.


Sure, but when the house has inside info not made to the public it's a lot easier to be on the right side of the broom for some people...
 
2012-05-22 02:01:18 PM
Someone help me out here, please.

In the midst of all of this, how much has Facebook's asset value increased? Do they now have $16 Billion more in cash?
 
2012-05-22 02:20:45 PM

RickyWilliams'sBong: The real difference is that people go to Google.com to look for things. Could be as simple as a quick route to a Wikipedia page, or in many cases they ay be looking for a product. If I'm shopping for house insurance, and Google has some relevant ads about it in my area up, I might click on them.

But people don't do that with Facebook. They go to FB to see what their friends and family are up to. They don't go looking for products. And if a friend mentions a product on FB to check out, what's the first thing you'll do? Google it.

That's FB's problem in a nutshell to me. There's no good mechanism for selling, and no natural integration of the product being sold with the mission of the site. It's just a bunch of status updates with a few ads for stickers and shiat on the side. It looks like a company designed and run by a Politburo of engineers and accountants.


And it's not just that because Google is a search engine. It's Gmail, which also integrates its ad technology. It's Android devices. And yea, Google+ was a bust, but that one fail isn't causing it's other products to seriously fail.

FB is a social website. Just like myspace.com was a social website and pets.com was a website and broadcast.com was a website. If Zuckerberg is smart, he'll pull a Mark Cuban and sell when the getting is good, but that still leaves the stock holders in the cold.
 
2012-05-22 02:30:58 PM
Facebook is still the only place people put their REAL information, and that's the biggest thing going for them.

Thinking outside the box, if Facebook came out with something like a phone and fully integrated it with people's friends lists.....they could market that really well. Free calling to your friends? Who's not gonna want that?

There's money to be had here. You're just not seeing it because you don't "need" it yet.
 
2012-05-22 02:32:29 PM

jbuist: PowerSlacker: Did the retail investors even have a chance to buy this thing before it started tanking?

I managed to buy at $42. I win the idiot prize.

Oh well.


Are you kidding? Are you serioulsy joking??
You're a member of this site... and you still bought?????
 
2012-05-22 02:54:32 PM

homarjr: Facebook is still the only place people put their REAL information, and that's the biggest thing going for them.

Thinking outside the box, if Facebook came out with something like a phone and fully integrated it with people's friends lists.....they could market that really well. Free calling to your friends? Who's not gonna want that?

There's money to be had here. You're just not seeing it because you don't "need" it yet.


Yeah, but how do you monetize that? Sell the phones at a profit? Ok, you've made some money. Now who covers the cost of the free service? And other than the money you've made upfront by selling the device, what have you gained that you didn't already know about the guy that has the fb app on his iphone? (for the record, the fb app skims all your contacts, call data, and texts)
 
2012-05-22 02:58:43 PM

WhoIsNotInMyKitchen: Board composition on a new company is pretty damn lose-lose in my mind.

One the one hand, I think its stupid that founders can rig voting share structures to get the cash from investors while maintaining disproportionate voting rights for themselves.

On the other hand, it sucks to be the founder and see the control of your company completely usurped by ransom board members at any stage (angel/VlutureCapital/public). As we've seen with Bain... the money guys don't give a damn about the business, they just want as much cash back as possible, as fast as possible.



I agree completely, the sad reality is in the current business climate to go public the founders have to give up control to gain the confidence of Wall Street. How Google avoided this was they had multiple founders and the majority of control was divided among at least 3 people, in Facebook's case control remains with one person and that scares the shiat out of Wall Street.
 
2012-05-22 03:09:01 PM
Interesting article here from a butthurt hedge-fund manager about how NASDAQ helped to fark things up.
 
2012-05-22 03:10:32 PM

homarjr: Who's not gonna want that?


Verizon, AT&T and Sprint. Somewhere, somebody is going to have to pay for those cell towers.

I don't see where having a bunch of information is really that valuable in today's world. Ten years ago that sort of database would be the holy grail of marketing, but are marketers really that strapped for data anymore? They can buy targeted lists generated from store bonus cards, internet-wide tracking cookies and collected from cross-industry tracking of purchases.

Is tossing in some college kid's weekend plans to go get hammered at the bar really adding that much value to what they already have access to?

I don't see the money here, you're right, but that's not what keeps me steering clear of this stock. It's the fact that I don't think the people running the company see the money either.
 
2012-05-22 03:12:03 PM

IrateShadow: homarjr: Facebook is still the only place people put their REAL information, and that's the biggest thing going for them.

Thinking outside the box, if Facebook came out with something like a phone and fully integrated it with people's friends lists.....they could market that really well. Free calling to your friends? Who's not gonna want that?

There's money to be had here. You're just not seeing it because you don't "need" it yet.

Yeah, but how do you monetize that? Sell the phones at a profit? Ok, you've made some money. Now who covers the cost of the free service? And other than the money you've made upfront by selling the device, what have you gained that you didn't already know about the guy that has the fb app on his iphone? (for the record, the fb app skims all your contacts, call data, and texts)


That's just one example, but my point is they can enter other markets with the data that they have on everyone. And in this example, the service would be VOIP anyway, so your ISP will cover the costs. No different than a Skype phone, except that you never need to update your contacts because Facebook takes care of that for you. It's the world's greatest address book.

In my opinion, social media is never going away. It's too important in most people's lives these days, and facebook is going to stick around in that market as long as google sticks around in search. What would it take for everyone to start over again? Killing facebook will not be easy. And eventually, they'll figure out a way to branch out simply because no one is leaving facebook for something else, like google+. The best chance is twitter, but that's a different animal (and twitter's greatest competitor is instagram, but facebook has them now).

Long story short, facebook might have a hard time growing right now, but they have a way harder time dying. It's not myspace at all.
 
2012-05-22 03:15:35 PM

Splinshints: homarjr: Who's not gonna want that?

Verizon, AT&T and Sprint. Somewhere, somebody is going to have to pay for those cell towers.

I don't see where having a bunch of information is really that valuable in today's world. Ten years ago that sort of database would be the holy grail of marketing, but are marketers really that strapped for data anymore? They can buy targeted lists generated from store bonus cards, internet-wide tracking cookies and collected from cross-industry tracking of purchases.

Is tossing in some college kid's weekend plans to go get hammered at the bar really adding that much value to what they already have access to?

I don't see the money here, you're right, but that's not what keeps me steering clear of this stock. It's the fact that I don't think the people running the company see the money either.


I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not at all interested in buying facebook stock right now. I just think there's more to this story, and they can branch out into something profitable because it's real data on people. Maybe not for advertisers, but for those people themselves. There must be some product out there where leveraging a facebook friends list could be huge money. All it takes is one good marketing campaign and the masses will buy it in droves.
 
2012-05-22 03:18:56 PM

RickyWilliams'sBong: MrBallou: modestlivinglegend: Hedge funds set this up to fail. They will profit handsomely. Don't trust stock brokers, Wall Street, stock markets. It is all an inside game and the little investors always get suckered. Politicians in power now are most linked to these scams. They think you are stupid.

Wow. This sounds like perfect tin-foil hat ranting, except it's true.

Scarey times.

Of course it's true. There's nothing in the underlying financials to justify anything close to $38. Might there someday? Sure.

But, having covered Google already, let's go for the other obvious tech comparison: Apple. With Apple, you can say, "Well, I think iPads and iPhones should still grow enormously before the market becomes saturated, and they'll probably leverage that into something involving television down the road." There's growth baked in there, and a history that gives some confidence they'll figure out the next big move.

There's no such thing with regard to FB. Buying at $38 is pure gambling on a company that really isn't all that impressive.

This was nothing but a sweeping of suckers' money.


I am not a huge Apple fan. But you are pretty much spot on. Even with saturation and no further innovation or invention there is still going to be sales based on hardware upgrades, lost & stolen, or damaged devices. Apple and Google both sell products and services not just a service.
 
Displayed 50 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report