Is it wise to hold on to stock that has plummeted and then stabilized?How do I simulate a trailing limit...

Uplifted animals have parts of their "brain" in various locations of their body. Where?

Calculate Levenshtein distance between two strings in Python

Can I legally use front facing blue light in the UK?

Patience, young "Padovan"

Is it legal to have the "// (c) 2019 John Smith" header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?

How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect

When blogging recipes, how can I support both readers who want the narrative/journey and ones who want the printer-friendly recipe?

Are objects structures and/or vice versa?

Landing in very high winds

Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors

Does a dangling wire really electrocute me if I'm standing in water?

Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?

Is this food a bread or a loaf?

What is the meaning of "of trouble" in the following sentence?

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

Pristine Bit Checking

What happens when a metallic dragon and a chromatic dragon mate?

"My colleague's body is amazing"

Prime joint compound before latex paint?

Why doesn't a const reference extend the life of a temporary object passed via a function?

Extreme, but not acceptable situation and I can't start the work tomorrow morning

Manga about a female worker who got dragged into another world together with this high school girl and she was just told she's not needed anymore

How to manage monthly salary

Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"



Is it wise to hold on to stock that has plummeted and then stabilized?


How do I simulate a trailing limit orderHow are investment funding valued when invested in a company before it goes public?May I Invest as a non accredited investor?What is it about company performance that causes the perceived value of its stock to rise?Company revenue increased however stock price did notCould ignoring sunk costs be used to make an investment look more attractive when it's really not?Historically, has stock value gone up in relation to corporate tax cuts? To what extent?Why can't we all agree to create a self-fulfilling prophecy with regards to the stock market?To what extent can dividends be seen as an informed and careful conclusion about the company's long term ability to at least maintain it?ESPP--any reason not to go all in?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







1















I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.










share|improve this question









New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 4





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    7 hours ago











  • @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    6 hours ago






  • 4





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    6 hours ago











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    6 hours ago


















1















I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.










share|improve this question









New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 4





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    7 hours ago











  • @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    6 hours ago






  • 4





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    6 hours ago











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    6 hours ago














1












1








1








I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.










share|improve this question









New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.







investing






share|improve this question









New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago







AlphaCentauri













New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 7 hours ago









AlphaCentauriAlphaCentauri

1092




1092




New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 4





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    7 hours ago











  • @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    6 hours ago






  • 4





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    6 hours ago











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    6 hours ago














  • 4





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    7 hours ago











  • @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    6 hours ago






  • 4





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    6 hours ago











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    6 hours ago








4




4





If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

– jcm
7 hours ago





If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

– jcm
7 hours ago













@jcm No, and that was my point.

– AlphaCentauri
6 hours ago





@jcm No, and that was my point.

– AlphaCentauri
6 hours ago




4




4





There's your answer.

– jcm
6 hours ago





There's your answer.

– jcm
6 hours ago













As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

– Bob Baerker
6 hours ago





As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

– Bob Baerker
6 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6














This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






share|improve this answer































    0














    (1) Assets held in stocks for many years (regardless of their "paper" value at any given moment, like now) are a way to protect them from taxation for those years. Unlike bank accounts, mutual funds, real estate, income-generating assets, etc, stocks incur NO taxes AT ALL during those held years-- it's a 100% taxation shelter for that time. So if there is any chance at all that your stock will recover, hold onto it.



    (2) Another reason to hold and not get rid of a stock is that if/when it does recover and you sell profitably, if you sell more than 18 months after acquisition, you pay long-term capital gains tax rate, which is less than short-term capital gains tax rate, and way less than wage/salary/interest/dividend income taxes.



    (2) Losses on stock are NOT valueless- in the USA, when you sell at a loss, you can write-off those losses against income that year* (gains made in other stock transactions, or in your salary) when you file your taxes, which will lower your taxable income and possibly even move you into a lower tax bracket (further reducing your taxes). *there are limits to how much you can do this, but you can carry-forward excesses beyond this limit into many future years, saving you taxes in those future years.



    The more money you've lost, the greater the benefit.



    Carefully timing your sales-at-a-loss can thus be beneficial to your taxes on a given year. Rich people do this all the time-- selling losses in the same year as they make a big gain in some other transaction. Lots of tech stock option recipients used this trick to extract at least some value out of worthless ESPP/ESOP stock.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "93"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      AlphaCentauri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107547%2fis-it-wise-to-hold-on-to-stock-that-has-plummeted-and-then-stabilized%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6














      This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



      It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



      The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






      share|improve this answer




























        6














        This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



        It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



        The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






        share|improve this answer


























          6












          6








          6







          This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



          It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



          The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






          share|improve this answer













          This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



          It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



          The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 4 hours ago









          JohnFxJohnFx

          35.7k984187




          35.7k984187

























              0














              (1) Assets held in stocks for many years (regardless of their "paper" value at any given moment, like now) are a way to protect them from taxation for those years. Unlike bank accounts, mutual funds, real estate, income-generating assets, etc, stocks incur NO taxes AT ALL during those held years-- it's a 100% taxation shelter for that time. So if there is any chance at all that your stock will recover, hold onto it.



              (2) Another reason to hold and not get rid of a stock is that if/when it does recover and you sell profitably, if you sell more than 18 months after acquisition, you pay long-term capital gains tax rate, which is less than short-term capital gains tax rate, and way less than wage/salary/interest/dividend income taxes.



              (2) Losses on stock are NOT valueless- in the USA, when you sell at a loss, you can write-off those losses against income that year* (gains made in other stock transactions, or in your salary) when you file your taxes, which will lower your taxable income and possibly even move you into a lower tax bracket (further reducing your taxes). *there are limits to how much you can do this, but you can carry-forward excesses beyond this limit into many future years, saving you taxes in those future years.



              The more money you've lost, the greater the benefit.



              Carefully timing your sales-at-a-loss can thus be beneficial to your taxes on a given year. Rich people do this all the time-- selling losses in the same year as they make a big gain in some other transaction. Lots of tech stock option recipients used this trick to extract at least some value out of worthless ESPP/ESOP stock.






              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.

























                0














                (1) Assets held in stocks for many years (regardless of their "paper" value at any given moment, like now) are a way to protect them from taxation for those years. Unlike bank accounts, mutual funds, real estate, income-generating assets, etc, stocks incur NO taxes AT ALL during those held years-- it's a 100% taxation shelter for that time. So if there is any chance at all that your stock will recover, hold onto it.



                (2) Another reason to hold and not get rid of a stock is that if/when it does recover and you sell profitably, if you sell more than 18 months after acquisition, you pay long-term capital gains tax rate, which is less than short-term capital gains tax rate, and way less than wage/salary/interest/dividend income taxes.



                (2) Losses on stock are NOT valueless- in the USA, when you sell at a loss, you can write-off those losses against income that year* (gains made in other stock transactions, or in your salary) when you file your taxes, which will lower your taxable income and possibly even move you into a lower tax bracket (further reducing your taxes). *there are limits to how much you can do this, but you can carry-forward excesses beyond this limit into many future years, saving you taxes in those future years.



                The more money you've lost, the greater the benefit.



                Carefully timing your sales-at-a-loss can thus be beneficial to your taxes on a given year. Rich people do this all the time-- selling losses in the same year as they make a big gain in some other transaction. Lots of tech stock option recipients used this trick to extract at least some value out of worthless ESPP/ESOP stock.






                share|improve this answer










                New contributor




                Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  (1) Assets held in stocks for many years (regardless of their "paper" value at any given moment, like now) are a way to protect them from taxation for those years. Unlike bank accounts, mutual funds, real estate, income-generating assets, etc, stocks incur NO taxes AT ALL during those held years-- it's a 100% taxation shelter for that time. So if there is any chance at all that your stock will recover, hold onto it.



                  (2) Another reason to hold and not get rid of a stock is that if/when it does recover and you sell profitably, if you sell more than 18 months after acquisition, you pay long-term capital gains tax rate, which is less than short-term capital gains tax rate, and way less than wage/salary/interest/dividend income taxes.



                  (2) Losses on stock are NOT valueless- in the USA, when you sell at a loss, you can write-off those losses against income that year* (gains made in other stock transactions, or in your salary) when you file your taxes, which will lower your taxable income and possibly even move you into a lower tax bracket (further reducing your taxes). *there are limits to how much you can do this, but you can carry-forward excesses beyond this limit into many future years, saving you taxes in those future years.



                  The more money you've lost, the greater the benefit.



                  Carefully timing your sales-at-a-loss can thus be beneficial to your taxes on a given year. Rich people do this all the time-- selling losses in the same year as they make a big gain in some other transaction. Lots of tech stock option recipients used this trick to extract at least some value out of worthless ESPP/ESOP stock.






                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                  (1) Assets held in stocks for many years (regardless of their "paper" value at any given moment, like now) are a way to protect them from taxation for those years. Unlike bank accounts, mutual funds, real estate, income-generating assets, etc, stocks incur NO taxes AT ALL during those held years-- it's a 100% taxation shelter for that time. So if there is any chance at all that your stock will recover, hold onto it.



                  (2) Another reason to hold and not get rid of a stock is that if/when it does recover and you sell profitably, if you sell more than 18 months after acquisition, you pay long-term capital gains tax rate, which is less than short-term capital gains tax rate, and way less than wage/salary/interest/dividend income taxes.



                  (2) Losses on stock are NOT valueless- in the USA, when you sell at a loss, you can write-off those losses against income that year* (gains made in other stock transactions, or in your salary) when you file your taxes, which will lower your taxable income and possibly even move you into a lower tax bracket (further reducing your taxes). *there are limits to how much you can do this, but you can carry-forward excesses beyond this limit into many future years, saving you taxes in those future years.



                  The more money you've lost, the greater the benefit.



                  Carefully timing your sales-at-a-loss can thus be beneficial to your taxes on a given year. Rich people do this all the time-- selling losses in the same year as they make a big gain in some other transaction. Lots of tech stock option recipients used this trick to extract at least some value out of worthless ESPP/ESOP stock.







                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 1 hour ago





















                  New contributor




                  Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 1 hour ago









                  Jaime GuerreroJaime Guerrero

                  11




                  11




                  New contributor




                  Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                      AlphaCentauri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      AlphaCentauri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      AlphaCentauri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      AlphaCentauri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107547%2fis-it-wise-to-hold-on-to-stock-that-has-plummeted-and-then-stabilized%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Why do type traits not work with types in namespace scope?What are POD types in C++?Why can templates only be...

                      Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?Why do tsunami waves begin with the water flowing away...

                      Simple Scan not detecting my scanner (Brother DCP-7055W)Brother MFC-L2700DW printer can print, can't...