Shares beat housing, even in Blighty

You’re a lone voice in the wilderness if you favor shares over property in the UK. UKVI calls out  five family members who are of the ‘property is my pension’  school of thought with him being the odd one out. Me too – BTLers to the left of me, housing rampers to the right of me – a cynical Ermine feels stuck in the middle with Stealer’s Wheel

on the subject of property, specifically residential property. It’s an asset class I loathe, and yet everybody else in Britain is in love with it. There is, apparently, no more sure-fire route for an ordinary middle-class Brit to financial Nirvana than a nice li’l buy-to-let or two, preferably bought with the magic of other people’s money.

In the limiting case, we will have everybody over 45 ‘owning’ two houses renting one of them to people under 45. Britain’s factories and service industries can lie shuttered, and we will have a perpetual motion machine when all the old ‘uns can retire at 50 and throw parties where they moan about their children not being able to afford to buy a house. Presumably the proceeds of their BTL will be handed down to their children when they reach the allotted hour, hopefully when said children get to around 451, and so the circle turns again.

So I was pleased to see on Monevator’s 10’th anniversary post  a copy of this chart from This is Money

Where it appears that shares beat residential property by about 30%. With shares at very high valuations at the moment that is comforting – if we have an average sort of crash2 soon then that 30% differential could easily be given up at the low water mark, but UK house prices are also at all time highs. It is not entirely clear to me on what basis This is Money computed the TR data for housing – by rights they should include rents, less maintenance and less mortgage servicing costs, conveyancing, SDLT and agency fees for the average BTL hold period whatever that is.

Perhaps the BTL boosters were right, provided they could raise the capital to go all-in in June 1995. That’s a yes for Fergus Wilson but perhaps a no for pretty much everyone else, because of the lumpiness of property you need to time your entry into the market very, very carefully, and the slow cycles mean entry points are few and far between. If ever there was a call for an investment trust3, residential property would be an obvious asset class, presumably the reason there isn’t anything like this says something about the aggregate returns on offer.

UK real house prices – 1995 was a barnstorming year to start your property-owning journey. The downturn at the end has tipped up again – KPMG have a report from 2017 for those wanting more

Stock market cycles are shorter than housing cycles, and 1995, the datum reference, was an absolutely great time to buy UK property, as twits like me who had bought property in 1989 started to capitulate and actually pay down the excess rather than hoping that it would ever come good again in any useful period of time. KPMG tell us 2009 was the second time house prices crashed since the second world war, while there have been 15 stock market crashes and bear markets since the war, counting US and UK ones, the sort that would bother somebody holding VGLS100 in the UK if it had been available in Macmillan’s time.

Ever the contrarian, Merryn Somerset-Webb tells us that these days houses are cheap in terms of gold, and I didn’t do so badly compared to people who bought between 1997 and about 2003.

All I can say is that she didn’t live the decade when my mortgage was higher than the value of the house or pay the difference down from earnings… KPMG have a chart of mortgage interest versus income which highlights that I drew a particularly short straw in 1989

Mortgage interest as a proportion of wages

Although the recent highlighting of mortgage plus repayment shows servicing costs are at historic highs relative to the early 1990s. Presumably KPMG is of the opinion that previous generations paid down their mortgages with fairy dust rather than real money.

I am all for buying the house you live in – pretty much for the converse of the reasons Joe Public gives for landlordism. Renting is evil in the UK and residential tenants have very little security of tenure. This is what makes landlords rich. You want to free yourself from the ministrations of Britain’s army of amateur landlords, because what’s good for them is not good for you. After that’s done, residential property is a shockingly illiquid lumpy asset class compared to the average Brit’s net worth, with serious costs of carry and transaction costs, because a house is a physical object subject to entropy; it’s always trying to fall down. As an asset class it stinks on the convenience front because of its indivisibility and illiquidity.

Unlike gold, it is at least productive, inasmuch as it provides a service that tenants will pay for. It’s not tremendously scalable, you’ve got to save up a lot of rental profits before the deposit on the next place, unless you are a Fergus Wilson, who happened to start in the early 1990s of knockdown house prices.

Stocks you can buy bit by bit at average prices. Houses, not so much

There are other shockingly toxic issues to do with residential property. You can invest regularly into the stock market, it’s called pound cost averaging. I do this still now – I think the stock market is ridiculously overvalued, and I hate myself for buying into it regularly. But it is remotely possible that it will go up for a couple of years, in which case I will lose out by diddling on the sidelines even after the inevitable crash, although I am reducing my contributions and holding more cash than is probably good for me.

You just don’t get to do that with residential property, you go all in with borrowed money when you buy your first house, somewhere in your thirties is the place in the normal human lifecycle. Vendors will laugh you out the door if you ask to buy that house over the next ten years in instalments with it marked to market each time.

Since you can’t raise the money you buy with a mortgage. That works like gangbusters when the housing market is going up, but it’s total misery when it’s going down. Because housing cycles are slower the misery persists longer, too. So not only do you not get to ramp your way into this market in a measured way, you get to do it at a time not particularly of your choosing – the time you need to engage with it was determined by la petite mort nine months before you were born, although it only comes to fruition after three decades pass.

My experience matches the chart. For sure, I was whacked around the chops with a wet fish by the stock market in the dotcom boom and bust as I learned the ropes, particularly in what not to do.

what not to do – contract notes from my dotcom days. Do. Not. Churn.

But it served me far better since then, and most of the gains I have made were from a combination of saving hard and the stock market. The hit I took was all money I had earned and could afford to lose, whereas with the house I hadn’t earned the money that I lost and could only just afford the loss. If I scale the money I stupidly paid for that house in 1989 and adjust it for inflation then it is only 20% less than my share of my current house, perhaps 40% less if I allow for the amount of equity I released along the way, which went into the stock market. I’d have been better off with gold, although the utility of a house in defending myself against the depredations of BTL landlords has great value of its own.

So it’s good to feel vindicated, despite all the property clowns to the left of me, joker landlords to the right of me. Those results have integrated several stock market cycles including one near death experience in 2008, but perhaps two housing market cycles and no catastrophic events like the early 1990s housing price crash. Reversion to the mean, clowns and jokers… In your favour, the illiquidity of your assets mean you escape some pathologies of the stock market investor, as UKVI went on to say, but you don’t have to be a stock market muppet!

  1. the implication is that they have these kids no earlier than when they are about 35, else the kids will be too old by the time the parents cark it 
  2. The credit crunch was a non-average crash – from the UKX high of 6732 in Jun ’07 to a low of 3800 is a suckout of 44%, it took to July 2009 to recover to only a fall of a third. But then unlike you do with a house, you’re a bit dippy to save up in cash for years and make a single humongous share purchase, so your average purchase price is unlikely to capture only the peak 
  3. You get plenty of investment trusts in commercial property in the form of REITs but despite the generally believed sure-fire one-way money-tree nature of UK residential property I know of no residential property REIT. You get oddball companies like Grainger PLC, and Castle Trust bastardised their Housa index product into bonds, presumably because they couldn’t turn a profit on it. Such a product would greatly help first-time buyers by allowing their deposits to track house prices. The closest I could find to a res property REIT is Hearthstone, but another problem for buyers is they need to track prices in the region they want to buy, since nobody buys the average UK house in reality. IG Index used to have regional house price indices, but the problem with spread betting is that the cost of carry is high for periods longer than about six months. 

30 thoughts on “Shares beat housing, even in Blighty”

  1. I’m a bear where property is concerned, but in defence of those who aren’t, I’d point to an omission in the Mail graphic comparing historic returns by asset class. The residential property figure is for unleveraged purchases, whereas those sitting on huge, unearned gains almost without exception used Other People’s Money.

    Sadly, few people get to buy shares the same way. I suspect that this accounts for Middle England’s enthusiasm for real estate.

    On the basis that the solution to a problem is usually to remove the underlying cause, reducing the availability of buy to let mortgages would do a lot, over time, to enable a new generation of owner occupiers to enter the market.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. The This is Money article was a bit odd. When I saw the graphic I expected the angle would be that while returns over the period (why 23 years ?) were similar, they’re uncorrelated assets.
    The most excellent’s ‘portfolio finder’ lists a five asset UK portfolio of stocks, st gov bonds, it gov bonds, gold and REITS as the best historical risk adjusted return. Which seems like a good strategy to maintain a decent SWR in retirement.
    Instead they push equity release down my craw, because that worked out well historically ? No because, “the industry has cleaned up its act over the past decade”. Sounds great, where do I sign ?


    1. The article seems to favour 23 years because it’s the average time that over 65s have been in their homes, although my cynical heart also observes it’s pretty much the best run you could have had with residential property. The total return any specific person got from housing starts with a datum at the first house they bought in their lives, I would guess that’s a bit longer for a typical over 65.

      The first line pissed me right off

      Have you paid off your mortgage and retired in a home you own outright? If you have, it makes you a pretty successful investor.

      . I have paid off my mortgage and retired in a home owned outright, and yet I was not a successful investor in it. Property was an epic fail for me investing-wise – I paid it off with more of my earnings than most of my colleagues 😦


    1. Didn’t realise HL advertise in the DM, I didn’t really think of DM readers as the sort to be worth HL trying to reach. Ad blocking is working well for me 😉 Seekingalpha seems to be mainly about the charges on platforms – holding shares and ETFs on a suitable platform that favours these is a good response. I haven’t paid platform fees on shares and index ETFs for many years.


  3. I’m not hot on residential property, either.
    Capital is a funny thing though. Historically, each time we had too much money sloshing around the Fates found a way to get rid of the excess – the railways, the housing, the dot-coms…. Right now we have excess capital once again, which is why I’m thinking of killing my mortgage before I ramp up my rate of buying into the stock market. The only thing that’s stoping me is the possibility of high inflation, which would kill the mortgage just as effectively, without me having to contribute very much towards the effort. The inflation in the late 80s – early 90s wasn’t very low, right? 😉


    1. Pah, that 7% inflation was nothin’ You weren’t a kid in the 1970’s oil shock, now that’s what I call inflation, it enabled my Dad to pay his mortgage down earlier in life than I, on a single blue-collar wage.

      In the late 80s early 90s mortgage rates were also high, there wasn’t a huge gap between inflation and interest rates. But I had an IO mortgage with endowment against the capital in those days, so it’s hard to say how fast the erosion of the capital due ot inflation would have beaten out the rising hit from the interest component.


  4. As mentioned here and over at UKVI – leverage is the big difference maker between property and equities for retail investors. Leverage is great in a long bull market but terminal in a bear market (i.e. game over man).

    Also agree with Neverland, you must be cautious at these types of ‘analysis’. Very few people would have that equity market return (due to time in market, fees etc.). Likewise the property return appears to be based on the nationwide index – there’s no such thing as an ‘average property’ or average property return. There’s the return you got on your property and all the returns you didn’t get.


    1. I was slightly surprised property hadn’t done better than it did, given they started from best initial point in recent living memory. If they are discounting the utility value, however, be that to a renter or to the owner-occupier then it probably comes out better. And yes, leverage is all, although I think the going all in with a lump probably improves real returns too, antoehr function of leverage. In a bull market, the other side of that coin is really nasty…


  5. Love this piece Ermine – the house prices vs gold chart shoes that I bought exactly on the dips for each of the three times I bought property – all by luck alone, and needing somewhere to live at that exact time.

    I’m very anti BTL for similar reasons to you, I don’t think it’s right to profit off others basic needs to such an extent.

    And the big question on my mind – I know the stock market crash is coming, but will it go up another 100% before then? I can never predict it, so I’m just dollar cost averaging cash in each and every month.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think with property it is the time you enter the market for the very first time that dominates your experience of the asset class. After all, I recently hopelessly overpaid for my house last year, but I was doing with the proceeds of the previous house which had appreciated, so someone had to overpay me. But I bought that with the paltry proceeds of the first house, less the money I had to toss down the toilet, I was almost in a similar place to a FTB on my second house.

      It’s not purely moral reasons I’m not in BTL, though I do think there’s something deeply wrong in it. I am tremendously scared of the asset class and its characteristics of illiquidity. The iedea of dealing with tenants gives me the creeps, too, I think you have to be an out and out extrovert and a skin of armour plating to go there at all!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think a mix of both property and equity is the way to go. The state decided a long time ago that it would shift the provision of housing into the private sector. I look after my tenants. I give them a safe house to live in and I don’t screw them on rent – in fact I give them a discount after a year. I treat them as human beings on the basis that I need them more than they need me. In turn I don’t seem to have any problems (yet). It is a fair deal. I need the mortgage paying and they often need somewhere to live temporarily whilst they get to know the area.
        So am I profiting off someone’s basic needs Ms Zi You? Only in the same way your shares in globalised corporations profit from everyone’s need for bread or medicines. Nothing free in this world – shelter included

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you – that is a fascinating paper. Although my lived experience is only the second half of fig.2 and I have only really been financially active post 1981. Fig 7 very clearly favours property in terms of risk taken 😦


      1. It’s hard to compare housing with equities. I think three reasons stick out beyond the obvious lack of liquidity and divisibility.

        (i) You can diversify equities easily whereas for most people their housing investment is one house, in one street, in one city, in one country. That presents a bunch of risks that’s very hard to hedge against.

        (ii) It’s easy – indeed for most people, essential – to gear a housing investment. (Moreover gearing is made comfortable by the absence of daily listings of what your house is worth.)

        (iii) The intrinsic housiness of housing; for example you are likely to need to spend on the house – on repairs, decoration, updating, insurance, whatever. On the other hand you do get to live in it for as long as you like – is that adequate compensation? How do you value that?

        I’ve no doubt that housing is much more equity-like than cash-like, bond-like, gold-like or commodity-like. Our house may well be what pays for my widow in the dementia home. If either of us leaves a bequest of any size it will be the house. So all wittering about “it’s not a financial asset” seems to me to be rubbish.


  6. My tenant has just renewed his lease – he’s lived there for 4 years now. His salary is double mine yet he chooses to live in a little one bed flat. Convenience for work perhaps, or saving up for his own property or paying down debts? Maybe he’s on the journey to FIRE? I don’t think I’m ‘evil’ for providing him and his wife with a home they are happy with. I do feel the pain of your experience with property in the past but just because it was bad for you, doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.

    So I’m with @Quitting Teaching, a mix is the way to go – this year, the value of my investments overtook the value of my property – I feel a bit more diversified now!


    1. > I do feel the pain of your experience with property in the past but just because it was bad for you, doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.

      I bang the drum intensely mainly to counter the effect of every other bugger in the UK saying that res property= perpetual money tree. So for sure it’s amped up to 11. But every dog has it’s day…

      I also hope to see the massed BTL hordes discover what the meaning of ‘with recourse’ is on their loans, obviously the wiser ones will jump before that’s a problem 😉 An awful lot of punters discovered the meaning of that in the early 1990s, I don’t see why landlords shouldn’t share some of the love when the time is right!

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Interesting information and discussion as always. I’ve always felt that buying was generally superior to renting in the long term because mortgage payments are less than rents and you’ll at least have something to show for it at the end of the mortgage term. As an example, son no. 2 recently started work in Cardiff where renting a nice, non-student 2 bed flat is £600/month whereas a mortgage on a nice, non-student 2 bed end of terrace house is £450/month.

    ( This does of course presuppose the fact that you have the cash for a deposit and the solicitors fees. Fortunately because my ill-gotten gains are not tied up in BTL property I was able to advance him the necessaries out of his inheritance 🙂 )

    As regards BTL, then for me it’s a minefield whose annoyances I can do without. Interestingly I know of at least one other person who is far more investment savvy than me who’s looked at it and said, “Nah, too much hassle” so I don’t feel too bad.


    1. “a mortgage on a nice, non-student 2 bed end of terrace house is £450/month.” Plus the cost of whatever repairs prove necessary. How does he hedge against that risk? Does insurance effectively cover everything conceivable?


      1. No, but the £150 a month difference does give you a pretty good buffer. Also once you realise that re-decorating, fixing the odd leak ( or even fitting a new kitchen/bathroom ) is not rocket science then you save even more money. The internet is awash with useful information on all things DIY.


    2. I sort of see where you’re going with the mortgage/rents, although that’s not always the case in times of more typical interest rates. It’s certainly the usual logic. There again markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you can remain solvent; the long term can be very long. It was 10 years before I broke even on renting. Pretty much all the money I actually made on housing happened towars the end of the second half of my 20 year mortgage period. So you are right, integrated over 20 years I got a win, but the tragedy was that it was my impecunious younger self that took all the risk and my older self that reaped the reward, when I didn’t need it. The stock market made me more money than the housing market, although I have come to acknowledge dearieme’s paper that my premise was wrong on a risk-adjusted basis.

      The second problem with housing is you can’t ramp into the market, but you go all-in with leverage with the very first house you buy. So 97% of people do fine, and 3% get slaughtered (the early 1990s are 30 years away, and it was probably only the people who bought over the year from late 1989/early 1990 who got totally killed).


      1. Yeah, here long term means “for the length of the mortgage” 🙂 Like every simple question the answer to “rent or buy?” is always going to start with”It depends …”

        Mortgages are simple though and you can’t skip a month to buy a 50″ telly or take out a lump sum to go to Disneyland or Vegas. ( Well you can re-mortgage but you can’t normally do that on a whim )


      2. To the end of the mortgage only works if you can service the debt, which assumes you don’t lose your job for any length of time, and interest rates don’t rise to levels that you can’t handle. Yeah, I hung on and won out in the long run. The guys either side of me in the early 1990s didn’t, I saw the foreclosure notice stuck to next door. They were the guys who couldn’t remain solvent for the duration of the market’s irrationality.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. My guess is that well over 90% of the general population understand effectively zilch about finance, even if they had any interest in it. As such, it’s totally understandable that a very common misconception is that renting is a mug’s game vs homeownership. A more accurate view is that what passes as owning (a mortgage) has a massive psychological advantage of giving a feeling of security, vs in-your-face renting, with its obvious potential for contemptious treatment enshrined in Uk law. The reality most people can’t cope with is that a lot of home-owners ‘own’ maybe the door-handle on their front door and could lose that ‘investment’ with a gust of bad luck, given the widespread precariousness of life in general today. If you can tolerate the insecurity and inconvenience in general of renting, but invest your savings wisely so that you get more return than from the illiquid gamble of your lifesavings in one property, (your home) then you’re not the renting cretin the system indoctrinates us to think.

    I’m shedding BTL asap now, I always hated it, not just for moral reasons, but for an intelligent investor as already mentioned above in the comments, its on the whole so not worth it on may levels. I can retain my total exposure to property as an asset class if I want, by simply shifting money to a related property fund if need be, rather than all my eggs in one basket. (I only was in it in the first place due to pressure from family members brainwashed by the conventional propaganda)


    1. I’ve researched Residential property REITs, partly as a result of reading dearieme’s paper linked above, although I am not yet sure I could actually bring myself to press the ‘buy’ button. I’d be interested to see what you have found.

      I hold Grainger plc, but they are atypical. I found Hearthstone, which is a difficult (and expensive) fund to buy. Investor’s Chronicle had this article about res prop REITs, there is KCR but it’s AIM listed. There are surprisingly few ITs targeting what’s by far Britain’s favourite asset class, which I find strange, since it could inject some much-needed professionalism into the market. Hearthstone at least try and replicate Britain’s general housing stock by capitalisation, ie 20% in London, the others seem to target social housing, and the point about social housing is that the tenants don’t have any money, which is why we used to do this as local government in more enlightened times, in the end any return to shareholders is going to come from giving the tenants the shaft. So I’m just plain confused. I can understand a REIT renting out to the sort of people weenie and you and Quitting Teaching rent out to, assuming they rent to people they expect to pay, and done as a company there may be economies of scale in terms of estate management and maintenance compares to three million amateurs with a house or two each. But social housing – WTF?


      1. @ermine, it’s indeed strange what with the UK so in thrall to all-things-property, that there are relatively few options or even much creativity around the edges of this asset class. I’m actually behind you on the curve, having only just persuaded the loved ones I partnered with on BTL (necessary if you’re not wealthy, given the high prices buying outright and difficulty getting a mortgage without a conventional income) to see the writing on the wall and get out now. But I was going to look at the types of funds I’ve heard have a massive portfolio of rental properties, commercial or residential, and then pay out an agreed % return annually. There are liquidity issues if the market slumps I’m sure, so it would count in my book as at least medium term, as in I accept I may not be able to touch it for 5-10 years. But I like that if an individual property goes bad, it’s effectively for you averaged out into insignificance vs finding Japanese knotweed on your single BTL. I will also check (once I have the BTL money ready to reinvest) whether it may be better doing this as shares in a company professionally managing a rented-out portfolio, though that may have to be in the longer-term sector of my overall plan, in keeping with my assumption I may not get value back from shares if I buy just before the crash.

        I know that with you I’m kicking at an open door with BTL, (I’ll say it anyway though because it’s irritating how many amateurs think you can’t go wrong in the long run) but there are things that’re bad about it that the amateur army don’t even know exist. Most don’t even know that that same leverage on the mortgage can bite you in the arse when interest rates swing against you and that that can happen at the same time as valuations sinking, so any capital gains can evaporate too. The toxicity of the leasehold phenomenon used to largely afflict flats, but swathes of new-build houses too are now affected; how can it be a sane system when if you have less than 90 years on the lease buyers will shy away, FFS? Until recently most people didn’t even live that long.

        To illustrate how much can go wrong, with my worst BTL, the annual estate charge is an unavoidable rip-off with little discernable value in return, while every few years the freeholder also magics up a bumper additional piece of work for a few grand. (Sir will have a new roof) Theoretically you can fight this in court, but in the battle of the deepest pockets they know it doesn’t make sense for you to lose the same or more in court over it. So starting from gross rental income, the freeholder takes a bite, then the taxman, then the management agency various creative fees, (for a lot of landlords, as well as tenant finding agency costs) then usual wear and tear costs, then voids. I haven’t actually lost yet by some miracle, but when I look at the list of predators and parasites involved in this chain, the others have less degree of risk and for less effort to boot; so it really doesn’t feel worth it, compared to exposure in the same asset class with a more nuanced way.


      2. @FI Warrior You can invest in commercial property in may ways – I hold British Land and Land Securities REITs, and there are funds where you can hold commercial properties diversified across countries too. Commercial property is a very different beast from Res property – you can’t compare the two at all. You do get liquidity problems in commercial property funds – like after the Brexit vote. I guess you’d get the same with residential property REITs in a 1990s scenario. I’m not personally of the opinion that now is the time to get into res prop, but on the other hand if you can drip, say £10k a year across 10 years you’d end up with about a half of the average UK house which is probably plenty if you also own your own house.

        I quite like Grainger – I could live in the Robin apartment if I were a young up and coming fellow in London. I asked the inflation calculator what the £1500 pcm rent would have been in 1987 money when I left my crummy Ealing bedsit in London, and they say it would be £587, which is about three times what I’d been paying in Ealing 30 years ago, renting from a guy who worked for IBM, no fridge, Baby Belling two ring cooker, and a communal bog and bathrooom. I was single in that bedsit, if the putative 30 years younger Ermine rented that Grainger place with a girl I’d say it would be a pretty good deal. Grainger offers this

        We provide stability by offering tenancies up to three years. You will also have a dedicated concierge, property manager and repairs and maintenance team on hand to ensure you enjoy your home to the fullest.

        rather than the sort of amateur BTL grebo who rented a bunch of us a house in Acton Town where maintenance was wiring the shower to the lighting circuit till the insulation melted and overheated and would never fix anything, and ran off with the deposit. Flippin’ amateurs, grrr…. At least the Ealing place only had the disadvantage I had to salt the perimeter to keep the black slugs out, rather than trying to kill me.

        As for leashold,to be honest if you buy a house leasehold you pretty much are asking for aggravation. It’s been a long, long time since urban houses were on land leased from the aristocracy holding on to their ancestral lands, that faded out in the 1960s with estate duties.


  9. @ermine, thanks for the helpful starting point in my hunt-to-come for relatively less risky, indirect exposure to property; I like that option of diversity across borders. Re: the leasehold issue, many people have no other option if almost all flats are leasehold and many find it hard to leave a city due to other limiting factors; so, until the gatekeepers in parliament relinquish that particular regulatory choke-hold, I can’t see it changing any time soon. One way around it would be masses of single flats built as an annex off ordinary houses everywhere, which could then be split off legally into independent entities, no different to semi-detached homes. I don’t know if this is legal currently, but it could solve a lot of housing problems in letting newly fledged young learning independence take an intermediate step away from the parents and grandparents stay still connected to the rest of the family.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: