Dear all - I'm Julia, the founder of Zidisha. I'd welcome comments and questions from anyone who would like to learn more about our P2P microlending platform.
In the Huffington Post article, you wrote: "Years of working with NGOs and government aid programs were convincing me that handouts are a dead end, temporarily soothing the acuteness of the injustice but taking donor and recipient down a path of dependence that ultimately makes the international wealth divide even wider."
Do you feel that way about a universal basic income? Does your statement only refer to single-recipient donations, that tend to cause dependence? I can't claim any personal experience, but from what I've read in e.g. [1] and [2], an unconditional basic income has positive effects on the community. The lesson I've taken from such pilot studies is that direct, conditionless donations are a very effective way to help the poor. I'm curious if I've learned the wrong lesson, and the benefits only appear if it's happening for a large population (or perhaps even that's not effective, and the studies are flawed or misleading).
How do you distribute funds and receive payments on loans? The reason some of your competitors use local banks is because it is extremely difficult to manage loans in some parts of the world and it requires boots on the ground. How do you address this difficulty?
I have an unrelated question, which you might have strong opinions on or information about.
I just finished reading http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465016154/ which espouses the theory that the root of a lot of problems is that countries set up formal property systems that exclude most of their population, and then fail to capture the contracts that people actually live by. Because of this, people are unable to secure loans because they can't prove to the broader world that "their" property is theirs.
It is a classic, "Here is the problem, fix this and all else gets better" kind of prescription. I'm always suspicious of those.
But as an expert in this area, what do you think of this one? Is it as big an issue as they claim? How much would fixing it help?
On the Zidisha statistics page† it says you have roughly 10% default rate but only 5% average interest rate. So if I make 10 loans of $1000 each, I expect to make $450 in interest and lose $1000 in principal to a default. That is a negative expected return. Why are Zidisha lenders willing to accept such terms? It seems like the interest rates should be higher given the risk of delinquency or default.
Before I get to my questions, I want to applaud your and Paul's efforts. It's great to see resources being spent in pursuit of causes that really matter.
First, what basis do you have for believing that micro lending is an effective means of poverty alleviation? I've yet to come across a well-respected study that proves it is, but have read a few [1] that question its efficacy.
And second, given your stance on aid, I'm curious why you structured Zidisha as a non profit? Couldn't an argument be made that the same negative effects you claim handouts have on the poor [2], also negatively impact Zidisha if you accept donations to run your organization?
Have you experienced any places or cultures that have not yet adopted a debt based economy? I don't know if any still exist but if so is there any concern for introducing a debt based economy in an area that has so far resisted it? I guess your service wouldn't have much value in an area that doesn't already have a debt based infrastructure in place. Do you have any particular thoughts or opinions about economies based on debt? Can other modals exist?
I love the idea, but I have one concern, which may or may not be real.
I think 5% is below market rate for what you are doing. By establishing 5% as the rate, you crowd out any local investment options which would need to charge above 5% (but not 60%). By making the subsidy non explicit, you make it even harder for local lenders to compete.
I don't know what a market rate for this kind of loan would be, but in the US, it would be more like 10%. Some kind of explicit discount due to social benefit or something like that, or marketing to launch a new business, or whatever, could make sense, but I really don't want to see the same situation where USAIS dumps free or subsidized goods and services and crowds out the local producer.
At the same time, sacrificing the (not yet extant) p2p lending sector in Kenya might be ok if it helps enough other businesses -- similarly communication and security being subsidized might be a net good.
Hi rdl, the question of which interest rate will result in the best social impact is one of the most frequently debated topics among Zidisha users.
We allow borrowers to offer any interest rate they wish, up to a maximum of 25%. Lenders are then free to fund the loans at any rate up to the maximum offered by the borrower. Many lenders opt to fund loan applications at well below the offered rate, resulting in an overall average of around 5%.
We have not taken a position on the "optimal" interest rate, other than limiting it to no more than 25%. It will be interesting to see whether the average interest rate changes over time and as we continue to grow.
I find the effort here commendable, but it will probably not take a very long time for these guys to realize that "Africa is not a country" . I'm Nigerian, and I have been to a few African countries.
First of all the challenges you have to overcome while doing business in Nigeria alone, varies wildly from one City to another.
Now comparing that to East Africa for example, the difference is night and day.
It may serve these guys well to begin their venture in one African country they find most familiar / friendly, then expand their efforts from there.
Obviously Africa is a huge and incredibly diverse place, but listing all of the countries in which Zidisha is currently working in the headline is kind of impractical. Julia (the founder of Zidisha) certainly isn't naive to the realities of working in Africa either -- you can read more about her experiences at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-kurnia/why-i-founded-zid... and she's also responding to questions here as "jkurnia".
Hi nanijoe, we have not yet had the chance to offer a program in Nigeria, but hope to soon.
We chose Kenya as the first country to pilot Zidisha, largely because it was the world leader in mobile phone-based payments, which we use to disburse the loans and receive payments electronically. Also, internet and Facebook penetration was especially high in Kenya, and that made it easy for many people to adopt and share our service.
We currently offer loans in these countries:
Benin
Burkina Faso
Ghana
Guinea
Indonesia
Kenya
Niger
Senegal
Zambia
This mindset seems to be relatively prevalent in Western business circles, but I don't think that is the mindset of this person. I think he's simply interested in distributing micro loans for interesting projects in Africa. Admittedly, it would be nice to have a little more direction to go off of than that.
If anyone reading this is interested check out the book "Success in Africa" to get an in depth look into the perception of Africa as a single homogenous place.
First of all, I would like to commend your worthy contribution to the good work the people at Zidisha are doing.
There is something I want to draw to your attention to(searched and did not find your email)
I am wondering how to balance the stereotyping to the "African Entrepreneur" while at the same time not forgetting the millions of small scale business owners in Africa.
When I first saw the headline, I was excited that finally, a top tech investor would be investing in African startups. Only to look and see yet another (VERY COMMENDABLE)but "charity like" donation.
In general, you do not see VCs from the west investing in African startups. That door is almost always closed. When they do it has to be under the category of impact investment and/or a "social enterprise"
Why do you think this is so?
Two years before the WhatApp acquisition, a Ghanaian startup SAYA https://www.saya.im/ came for disrupt but they could not get any funding. Even with hundred thousands waiting signups. Almost like they were not worthy to tackle high tech.
I am very certain that if these guys had built an SMS app to remind farmers of prices in the market (or something along that line) they would have got funding.
Thankfully, things are changing a bit as Dropifi http://www.dropifi.com/ (from Ghana) got funding from 500 Startups.
PS: I want to make it clear that what you are doing is very worthy and commendable and this is not meant to be a criticism of you or this action in ANY way.
PPS: I will be in SF from Wed-Sunday this week and would be very happy to chat with people who want to learn about the tech scene in Nigeria (yes and that includes 'Nigerian scams' et al :)).
Oh. I also do not mind surfing on your couch if available too :). You will be paid in Nigerian beer (I brought some).
Part of what I like so much about YC is that we are open to entrepreneurs from anywhere in the world. In fact, the latest batch has founders from 23 different countries: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/411897120572989440
I think we've had Nigerian founders in the past, and I'd love to see more African entrepreneurs in the program. I believe it benefits everyone to have a more diverse set of perspectives in the batch.
Obviously the big problem for many is getting past the American immigration system. We'd all like to reform that system, but unfortunately those changes take a long time. Maybe some day we'll expand the program to a location that has better international accessibility.
Hi phantom_oracle, we've investigated profit-sharing models, and consulted with some experts in Islamic microfinance about the feasibility of implementing a profit-sharing form of financing for Zidisha. This was attractive to us because it addresses the unfairness of being left to repay a debt when one's business investment has failed.
We did not end up introducing profit-sharing at Zidisha because even in consultation with experts, we did not manage to come up with a viable way to ensure the profit verification on which this model rests. Zidisha is purely an online service, without local loan officers, and our understanding is that applications of profit-sharing models to microfinance rely on extensive personal monitoring of the funded businesses.
I like the idea of p2p financial services. However everything development related is complicated qnd the stories describing projects are often romanticised.
There was a great podcast recorded during the initial microfinance boom. One surprising conjecture is that most small like ans are for consumption, not seed capital and that this is rational.
I think the use of loans depends a great deal on the location and microfinance program in question.
At Zidisha, we don't restrict the purpose of loans (other than requiring that it be legal and ethical). The vast majority of applications nevertheless feature small businesses. This may be because the applicants are simply telling the lenders what they think the lenders want to hear, but the business uses of the loans have usually been confirmed when our volunteers visit the borrowers. (See this blog kept by an intern in Kenya last year for some good examples http://talkingstorykenya.wordpress.com/.)
When funds have not been used for revenue-generating purposes, this is usually due to an unplanned contingency, such as a health emergency in the family or a time of financial scarcity coinciding with school tuitions falling due.
I personally would not object to more loans being used for purposes such as tuition or home improvements, but understand that it is often too risky for individuals without regular sources of income to use debt to finance assets that do not generate revenue.
Neat idea. I love that the repayments are going back in to funding Zidisha itself - a unique way to raise ~$100k! Congrats on the funding round Julia :)
Loans are way much better form of helping, but investing with a partnership and advisors is a better option. Money is the key ingredient, but the some ventures do require lot of knowledge. Are loans preferred due to regulatory issues? How do you overcome "This is just money from rich western guys to dump the guilt" mentality? Are you going to build alumni network in similar vein to YC?
Hi lukasm, an online investment / advising service that bridged the international wealth divide would add immense value. We did not attempt it at Zidisha due to the difficulties in monitoring and policing such a system at scale.
Most of our borrowers seem to feel a strong obligation to repay their lenders despite the disparity in wealth and culture. Maybe this is because they see the lenders as individuals like them.
Our members, borrowers and lenders, communicate with each other regularly through the website, and sometimes meet in person as well - for example, Zidisha members in Nakuru, Kenya, held a conference last week. It would be interesting to try to develop that into a network more focused on sharing advice and help, like YC.
A few facts about Zidisha and Kiva that got erased from Paul's blog yesterday, so reposting here for the benefit of the community.
Kiva launched a new model a few years back: KivaZip.org. Like Zidisha, it allows you to make direct loans to underserved businesses. Starting in Kenya and the U.S., you can make 0% interest loans directly and converse with the entrepreneur.
Unlike Zidisha, the repayment rate is much higher (90% ontime repayment on KivaZip vs. a 40% ontime repayment on Zidisha) and Kiva Zip has nearly double the loan volume through which risk management can be refined.
Both models are early stage.
Further, when you lend through Zidisha, there's a chance that you will not be able to withdraw your money (given SEC regulation). Kiva Zip has been cleared by regulators since it does not let you earn a rate of return, but you can withdraw your principal.
Both models are early days, but nonetheless important factors to consider when thinking about Kiva and Zidisha. Want to applaud effort by Paul, YC and the community to direct more talent, energy and resources to great problems of the world.
I think this is a great idea. (Disclosure I have been a supporter for Zidisha for a while). This is a great best-of-two world approach of GiveDirectly (pro borrower) and traditional Microfinance (pro intermediary/lender).
The traditional microfinance has been a mess because it creates a lot of over powerful institutions and the usurious rates don't necessarily make lives in Africa better.
The GiveDirectly's direct handout model can be easily abused on the borrower side.
Zidisha bridges the gap between the two with technology. I think it's great disruption.
I do think the international aid microloans need to be subsidized so their rate is affordable but it's good for borrowers. I think even American small business loans need to be subsidized too. It would be very expensive if you make everything determined by market forces. That's why OnDeck and Kabbage get away with their 50% APR loans. But I think it's bad for the small businesses and bad for the economy.
You could try sending some email around. Something like this:
"Hi, please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Paul, and I have recently come into a large amount of money that I would like invest in your country as soon as possible. Due to unforeseen circumstances, I am unable to invest this money myself, and seek your partnership in order to invest the money profitably. I ask your complete discretion so that the money does not fall into the wrong hands.
Please, sir, kindly treat as urgent and strictly confidention. I assure you that this is a 100% risk free transaction."
This is a fantastic thing to do. I do have one question. Do you plan to do the same thing (maybe in a smaller scale) in the US? Say, help people in some impoverished area of the country with some small funding to help them get micro businesses going. Not arguing against the choice to do so in Africa (its great), just interested if there would be a push to do it "locally".
Hi bliti, we do not have any plans to offer lending services in the US. Not because Americans are less deserving, but simply because it is not our area of expertise or focus.
If you would like to lend to entrepreneurs in the US, I would recommend checking out Kiva Zip, which does lend to Americans as well as Kenyans. https://zip.kiva.org/
You should be aware before putting money into Zidisha that current non-repayment on Zidisha is ca 30%, and that to break even when lending on Zidisha you need to charge flat interest rate to 32% break-even.
Zidisha is also giving huge credit bonuses to borrowers who invites new borroers, this also gives a danger of increasing default rate.
So I advice not to put more into Zidisha than you are prepared to loose.
Paul, great that you recognized it and contributed.
I sometimes despair about how much negativity and nit picking there is around people who are doing, or at least trying to do, things that really change the world.
In my mind this is way ahead of Whatsapp getting all the money, yet there was very little negative reaction to that event.
[+] [-] jkurnia|12 years ago|reply
If you'd like to hear more about my own journey and the experiences that lead to the founding of Zidisha, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-kurnia/why-i-founded-zid...
[+] [-] David|12 years ago|reply
Do you feel that way about a universal basic income? Does your statement only refer to single-recipient donations, that tend to cause dependence? I can't claim any personal experience, but from what I've read in e.g. [1] and [2], an unconditional basic income has positive effects on the community. The lesson I've taken from such pilot studies is that direct, conditionless donations are a very effective way to help the poor. I'm curious if I've learned the wrong lesson, and the benefits only appear if it's happening for a large population (or perhaps even that's not effective, and the studies are flawed or misleading).
[1] http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html [2] http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100
[+] [-] pilom|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btilly|12 years ago|reply
I just finished reading http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465016154/ which espouses the theory that the root of a lot of problems is that countries set up formal property systems that exclude most of their population, and then fail to capture the contracts that people actually live by. Because of this, people are unable to secure loans because they can't prove to the broader world that "their" property is theirs.
It is a classic, "Here is the problem, fix this and all else gets better" kind of prescription. I'm always suspicious of those.
But as an expert in this area, what do you think of this one? Is it as big an issue as they claim? How much would fixing it help?
[+] [-] minimax|12 years ago|reply
†https://www.zidisha.org/index.php?p=43
[+] [-] smithm9|12 years ago|reply
Before I get to my questions, I want to applaud your and Paul's efforts. It's great to see resources being spent in pursuit of causes that really matter.
First, what basis do you have for believing that micro lending is an effective means of poverty alleviation? I've yet to come across a well-respected study that proves it is, but have read a few [1] that question its efficacy.
And second, given your stance on aid, I'm curious why you structured Zidisha as a non profit? Couldn't an argument be made that the same negative effects you claim handouts have on the poor [2], also negatively impact Zidisha if you accept donations to run your organization?
Thanks for your responses.
[1] https://www.givedirectly.org/pdf/DFID_microfinance_evidence_...
[2] http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4623503
[+] [-] cktsai|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] janj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
I think 5% is below market rate for what you are doing. By establishing 5% as the rate, you crowd out any local investment options which would need to charge above 5% (but not 60%). By making the subsidy non explicit, you make it even harder for local lenders to compete.
I don't know what a market rate for this kind of loan would be, but in the US, it would be more like 10%. Some kind of explicit discount due to social benefit or something like that, or marketing to launch a new business, or whatever, could make sense, but I really don't want to see the same situation where USAIS dumps free or subsidized goods and services and crowds out the local producer.
At the same time, sacrificing the (not yet extant) p2p lending sector in Kenya might be ok if it helps enough other businesses -- similarly communication and security being subsidized might be a net good.
[+] [-] jkurnia|12 years ago|reply
We allow borrowers to offer any interest rate they wish, up to a maximum of 25%. Lenders are then free to fund the loans at any rate up to the maximum offered by the borrower. Many lenders opt to fund loan applications at well below the offered rate, resulting in an overall average of around 5%.
We have not taken a position on the "optimal" interest rate, other than limiting it to no more than 25%. It will be interesting to see whether the average interest rate changes over time and as we continue to grow.
[+] [-] nanijoe|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paul|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkurnia|12 years ago|reply
We chose Kenya as the first country to pilot Zidisha, largely because it was the world leader in mobile phone-based payments, which we use to disburse the loans and receive payments electronically. Also, internet and Facebook penetration was especially high in Kenya, and that made it easy for many people to adopt and share our service.
We currently offer loans in these countries:
Benin Burkina Faso Ghana Guinea Indonesia Kenya Niger Senegal Zambia
[+] [-] AustinGrandt|12 years ago|reply
If anyone reading this is interested check out the book "Success in Africa" to get an in depth look into the perception of Africa as a single homogenous place.
[+] [-] OoTheNigerian|12 years ago|reply
First of all, I would like to commend your worthy contribution to the good work the people at Zidisha are doing.
There is something I want to draw to your attention to(searched and did not find your email)
I am wondering how to balance the stereotyping to the "African Entrepreneur" while at the same time not forgetting the millions of small scale business owners in Africa.
When I first saw the headline, I was excited that finally, a top tech investor would be investing in African startups. Only to look and see yet another (VERY COMMENDABLE)but "charity like" donation.
In general, you do not see VCs from the west investing in African startups. That door is almost always closed. When they do it has to be under the category of impact investment and/or a "social enterprise"
Why do you think this is so?
Two years before the WhatApp acquisition, a Ghanaian startup SAYA https://www.saya.im/ came for disrupt but they could not get any funding. Even with hundred thousands waiting signups. Almost like they were not worthy to tackle high tech.
I am very certain that if these guys had built an SMS app to remind farmers of prices in the market (or something along that line) they would have got funding.
Thankfully, things are changing a bit as Dropifi http://www.dropifi.com/ (from Ghana) got funding from 500 Startups.
PS: I want to make it clear that what you are doing is very worthy and commendable and this is not meant to be a criticism of you or this action in ANY way.
PPS: I will be in SF from Wed-Sunday this week and would be very happy to chat with people who want to learn about the tech scene in Nigeria (yes and that includes 'Nigerian scams' et al :)).
Oh. I also do not mind surfing on your couch if available too :). You will be paid in Nigerian beer (I brought some).
my email is in my profile.
[+] [-] paul|12 years ago|reply
I think we've had Nigerian founders in the past, and I'd love to see more African entrepreneurs in the program. I believe it benefits everyone to have a more diverse set of perspectives in the batch.
Obviously the big problem for many is getting past the American immigration system. We'd all like to reform that system, but unfortunately those changes take a long time. Maybe some day we'll expand the program to a location that has better international accessibility.
[+] [-] newfund|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phantom_oracle|12 years ago|reply
Why didn't you guys opt for the profit-sharing philosophy?
Contract laws in some countries can turn some entrepreneurs insolvent because of interest, but profit-sharing won't have such a devastating impact.
I'd help, but not under compound interest restrictions.
[+] [-] jkurnia|12 years ago|reply
We did not end up introducing profit-sharing at Zidisha because even in consultation with experts, we did not manage to come up with a viable way to ensure the profit verification on which this model rests. Zidisha is purely an online service, without local loan officers, and our understanding is that applications of profit-sharing models to microfinance rely on extensive personal monitoring of the funded businesses.
[+] [-] netcan|12 years ago|reply
There was a great podcast recorded during the initial microfinance boom. One surprising conjecture is that most small like ans are for consumption, not seed capital and that this is rational.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/04/munger_on_micro.htm...
[+] [-] jkurnia|12 years ago|reply
At Zidisha, we don't restrict the purpose of loans (other than requiring that it be legal and ethical). The vast majority of applications nevertheless feature small businesses. This may be because the applicants are simply telling the lenders what they think the lenders want to hear, but the business uses of the loans have usually been confirmed when our volunteers visit the borrowers. (See this blog kept by an intern in Kenya last year for some good examples http://talkingstorykenya.wordpress.com/.)
When funds have not been used for revenue-generating purposes, this is usually due to an unplanned contingency, such as a health emergency in the family or a time of financial scarcity coinciding with school tuitions falling due.
I personally would not object to more loans being used for purposes such as tuition or home improvements, but understand that it is often too risky for individuals without regular sources of income to use debt to finance assets that do not generate revenue.
[+] [-] dchs|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukasm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkurnia|12 years ago|reply
Most of our borrowers seem to feel a strong obligation to repay their lenders despite the disparity in wealth and culture. Maybe this is because they see the lenders as individuals like them.
Our members, borrowers and lenders, communicate with each other regularly through the website, and sometimes meet in person as well - for example, Zidisha members in Nakuru, Kenya, held a conference last week. It would be interesting to try to develop that into a network more focused on sharing advice and help, like YC.
[+] [-] factcheck12|12 years ago|reply
Kiva launched a new model a few years back: KivaZip.org. Like Zidisha, it allows you to make direct loans to underserved businesses. Starting in Kenya and the U.S., you can make 0% interest loans directly and converse with the entrepreneur.
Unlike Zidisha, the repayment rate is much higher (90% ontime repayment on KivaZip vs. a 40% ontime repayment on Zidisha) and Kiva Zip has nearly double the loan volume through which risk management can be refined.
Both models are early stage.
Further, when you lend through Zidisha, there's a chance that you will not be able to withdraw your money (given SEC regulation). Kiva Zip has been cleared by regulators since it does not let you earn a rate of return, but you can withdraw your principal.
Both models are early days, but nonetheless important factors to consider when thinking about Kiva and Zidisha. Want to applaud effort by Paul, YC and the community to direct more talent, energy and resources to great problems of the world.
[+] [-] yunfang|12 years ago|reply
The traditional microfinance has been a mess because it creates a lot of over powerful institutions and the usurious rates don't necessarily make lives in Africa better.
The GiveDirectly's direct handout model can be easily abused on the borrower side.
Zidisha bridges the gap between the two with technology. I think it's great disruption.
I do think the international aid microloans need to be subsidized so their rate is affordable but it's good for borrowers. I think even American small business loans need to be subsidized too. It would be very expensive if you make everything determined by market forces. That's why OnDeck and Kabbage get away with their 50% APR loans. But I think it's bad for the small businesses and bad for the economy.
[+] [-] davidw|12 years ago|reply
"Hi, please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Paul, and I have recently come into a large amount of money that I would like invest in your country as soon as possible. Due to unforeseen circumstances, I am unable to invest this money myself, and seek your partnership in order to invest the money profitably. I ask your complete discretion so that the money does not fall into the wrong hands.
Please, sir, kindly treat as urgent and strictly confidention. I assure you that this is a 100% risk free transaction."
[+] [-] bliti|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkurnia|12 years ago|reply
If you would like to lend to entrepreneurs in the US, I would recommend checking out Kiva Zip, which does lend to Americans as well as Kenyans. https://zip.kiva.org/
[+] [-] wehadfun|12 years ago|reply
The money they would be paying back they could use to build up their business.
I doubt anyone would do this investment for a return.
[+] [-] jkurnia|12 years ago|reply
1. Loans once repaid can be lent out repeatedly, thereby helping many more people.
2. Repaying a loan at a reasonable interest rate puts lender and entrepreneur on a more equal footing, and is therefore more dignified for both.
3. Loans encourage a proactive and independent mentality on the part of the entrepreneur, rewarding success rather than neediness.
[+] [-] Zidishalender|12 years ago|reply
Zidisha is also giving huge credit bonuses to borrowers who invites new borroers, this also gives a danger of increasing default rate.
So I advice not to put more into Zidisha than you are prepared to loose.
[+] [-] dror|12 years ago|reply
Awesome work.
Paul, great that you recognized it and contributed.
I sometimes despair about how much negativity and nit picking there is around people who are doing, or at least trying to do, things that really change the world.
In my mind this is way ahead of Whatsapp getting all the money, yet there was very little negative reaction to that event.
[+] [-] michaelmior|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paul|12 years ago|reply
thanks
[+] [-] Nellyjpkrr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bayesianhorse|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nellyjpkrr|12 years ago|reply