31.5 C
New York

Tag: understand

Developing digital creators

Education is duty-bound to prepare students for the digital age, so they're well equipped to succeed in the constantly growing and...

Karl Bray appointed Director of Product at Luckbox

Karl Bray has been appointed Director of Product at Luckbox.With an extensive background in gaming, sportsbook and financial trading, Karl joined Luckbox in 2018...

Understanding Supply Chain Attributes for Better Forecasting

Why do we need Attribute Based Planning? Attributes are properties specific to an object. In a supply chain, like anything else, everything that you deal with has attributes.

The post Understanding Supply Chain Attributes for Better Forecasting appeared first on Adexa.

Why invest in an IPO?

The post Why invest in an IPO? appeared first on ClickIPO.

Tag Template - News Hub PRO

Windlab


One of the more interesting companies to launch an IPO in the last few years is Windlab, a windfarm development company that was founded in 2003 to commercialise software developed at the CSIRO. Windlab’s proprietary software Windscape overlays atmospheric modelling on geographical features to identify and evaluate potential windfarm sites. In their prospectus they claimed this software gives them a significant advantage over other windfarm development companies, as it enables them to identify sites with high wind resources without conducting costly and lengthy on-site testing. As evidence of this claim, the two windfarms that delivered the highest percentage of their maximum output throughout 2018 are on sites found and developed using windscape, Coonooer Bridge and Kiata both in Victoria. 

The company listed in August 2017 on the ASX at $2 a share, equalling a fully diluted market cap of $146.3 million. While initially results were promising, with the company making a profit of $9.5 million in 2017, 2018 has seen a complete reversal of that progress, with revenue dropping from $23.1 million to $3.5 million, and the company making a loss of $3.8 million. As a result, the share price has declined steeply, and is now trading at around $1.04, or a market cap of $77 million.
While for the average company a decline in performance of this magnitude would suggest that something is seriously wrong, I don’t think this is the case for Windlab. Like any company that gains most of its revenue from developments, significant swings in profit from one year to the next are inevitable. The company went from reaching financial close on two windfarm sites in 2017 to one in 2018, and while the failure to reach financial close on a single project was disappointing, it is not surprising given the long timeframes required for most wind farm developments.  It is my belief that the market has overreacted to Windlab’s 2018 results due to a misunderstanding or mistrust of the companies operating model, and that at the current share price the company is significantly undervalued.

The Case for Windlab


 Renewable energy is going through a difficult time in Australia, with little cohesion between federal and state governments, and new connection requirements making connecting a renewable energy plant to the grid more expensive. However, if you believe that climate change is real, then renewable energy should be one of the fastest growing industries over the next twenty to thirty years. While growth in the efficiency of solar tends to get more attention, Windfarm technology is also improving in efficiency, and nearly all renewable energy experts see wind farms playing a significant role in the transition to renewable energy. On a much shorter time scale, if Labor wins the upcoming federal election the domestic market for renewable energy should improve markedly. Labor has a policy of 50% renewable energy by 2030, and to achieve this the level of investment in wind farm projects in Australia will need to increase exponentially.

Windlab is ideally placed to take advantage of this, as the development of windfarm sites is perhaps the most profitable part of the wind farm industry. From 2014 to 2017 the company managed an average Return On Equity of 42%, in a time that included significant growth and the cost of listing on the ASX. 

. 2017 2016 2015
Revenue  $                                          24,515,379  $           18,101,100  $         10,012,006
Expenses -$                                          10,098,372 -$           13,023,113 -$           8,524,804
Profit before income tax  $                                          14,417,007  $             5,077,987  $            1,487,202
Income tax -$                                            4,912,534 -$             1,779,491  $                 14,687
Profit  $                                            9,504,473  $             3,298,496  $            1,501,889
Equity at the start of the year  $                                          13,404,230  $             9,207,680  $            7,699,065
ROE 71% 36% 20%
Average 42%

The company is able to achieve this sort of ROE as windfarm developments are sold once all approvals and agreements signed but before construction begins, meaning developing multi-million dollar projects does not require significant capital. For example, take the site of the Coonooer bridge wind farm, a 19.8 megawatt wind farm in North Western Victoria with a total development cost of $48.6 million. After identifying the site with Windscape, Windlab spent only $300,000 in acquiring the land, then spent $2.2 million or research and planning applications for a total investment of only $2.5 million. Windlab then sold 96.5% of the equity in the Coonoer Bridge to Eurus Energy for just over $4.7 million who then funded the construction of the site with help from grants from the state government. In total, Windlab walked away from this transaction with over $4.7 million in cash and a remaining 3.5% stake in the project, a return of over 111% on the initial investment. 

Valuation


While historically Windlab has sourced most of its revenue from wind farm development, the company also has a growing asset management arm of the business, where they provide asset management services to Wind and Electricity farms, in addition to significant equity in operating and soon to be operating Windfarms. Although historically insignificant when compared to the companies development fees, these sections of the business are quickly growing, and seems to be the managements way of ensuring cashflows are a little more predictable in the future.

In order to accurately value Windlab, I have therefore broken down the company into three separate areas.

Inventory (wind farm development projects)

The book value Windlab gives to its inventory as per the 2019 financials is $9.69M, though this is overly conservative as projects are valued at the lower of their cost or net realisable value.  In order to get a more accurate picture of the actual value of Windlab’s inventory, I have tried to assign individual value to some of Windlab’s larger projects.

Lakeland Wind Farm

Lakeland is a 106 megawatt project located in Northern Queensland. While Windlab does not give a breakdown of inventory values, due to its size and stage in the development cycle the Lakeland Wind Farm is probably the single project with the largest value in the companies inventory.  Lakeland is also one of the main causes for the decline in share price over the last six months, as the project was scheduled to reach financial close in 2018 until the primary investor pulled out at the last minute. This delay has meant the project is now subject to new requirements to connect to the electricity grid, which will mean significant additional costs to increase the stability of the connection (this is a change to the nation-wide connection criteria for renewable energy plants designed to address unstable supply).

While these setbacks are undeniably concerning, Windlab claims that the delay has also allowed them to re-tender for more efficient turbines and they have not yet impaired the inventory value of the project, something they have done in the past when projects are compromised. As per their latest announcements Windlab are still confident of reaching financial close on this project in 2019.
If successful, Lakeland will be the largest project brought to financial close by Windlab to date, at 106 Megawatts. For Kennedy, a 56 megawatt project, Windlab received a financial close payment of 5.4 million, while keeping 50% equity in the project. If Windlab is to acheive a similar margin and equity structure for Lakeland, this would result in a payment to Windlab of $10.2 million, with the remaining 50% equity in the project worth at least $10.2 million as well, for a total value of $20.4 million. Given the uncertainty around the project though, a 50% discount would seem appropriate, which gives the project a total value of $10.2 million for our calculations.

Miombo Hewani

Another late stage windfarm project for Windlab is the Miombo Hewani windfarm in Tanzania. This 300-megawatt, $750 million project is Windlab’s first foray into East Africa, and is undoubtedly the companies most ambitious yet. The project received approval from the Tanzanian government in July 2018 and will receive partial funding from the Government of Finland. Windlab have not committed to achieving financial close in 2019 for Miombo Hewani which is understandable given the uncertainty of operations in Africa, but as development approval is already in place as well as some funding arrangements, financial close can’t be too far off. Demonstrating the significant potential value of Miombo Hewani and Windlabs other East African investments, Eurus Energy, a Japanese sustainable energy company that has partnered with Windlab in the past recently bought a 25% stake in Windlab’s east African projects for $10 million USD, valuing Windlab’s remaining stake in their East African portfolio of development projects alone at $30 million USD, or $42.2 million AUD. While this may seem excessive, Windlab stated in their prospectus that their target development margin for Windfarm developments is $250,000 per megawatt of capacity, and from 2015 to 2017 the company had overachieved this, with margins of $260,000 to $490,000 per megawatt. If Windlab was to successfully reach financial close on Miombo Hewani at their target development margin, this would result in a payment of $75 million alone. As a result, adopting the value assigned by Eurus Energy of $42.3 million for the companies East African projects seems reasonable.

Greenwich

The last late-stage development project worth noting in this section is the Greenwich Windfarm in the USA. Windlab officially sold the project in 2018, but will only receive the bulk of their payment of $4 million USD (5.6M AUD) when construction begins. While Windlab have stated they expect to receive this payment in 2019, a group of neighbours have mounted a challenge to the project to the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to dispute the approval given by the Ohio Power Board. . Given the uncertainty of the case, it is probably prudent to discount this payment by 50%, which would mean a value of $2.8 million for Greenwich.


While the projects listed above are the most likely to result in some form of payment in the next 12 to 18 months, Windlab has numerous other projects earlier in the development cycle. These include:
  • 640 megawatts of approved potential capacity across multiple projects in South Africa. (While South African Renewable Energy projects have been on hiatus, it does seem the projects are about to get up and running again after a recent change of government 
  •       250 megawatt project in Northern Queensland that Windlab is intending to submit a development application for in 2019
  •           230 megawatt project in Vedigre USA that Windlab no longer has control over, but is eligible for up to $4.6 million in success payments if the project reaches financial close.


While an exact value for all of these projects is difficult, I have assigned a value of $15 million for the remainder of Windlab's projects.

Excluding Windlab’s asset management business, which I will cover separately, Windlab spends around $6.4 million a year on project expenses, administration and employees. The projects I have listed above are predominantly expected to reach some form of financial close in the next three years, so it seems logical to assign a cost of $19.2 million, or three years of costs to the above calculations. Once a tax rate of 30% is factored in, you are left with a total inventory value of $35.177 as per the below table.

Project Value
Lakeland  $   10,200,000.00
East African projects  $   42,300,000.00
Greenwich  $     2,800,000.00
Other projects  $   15,000,000.00
Total  $   70,300,000.00
Book value  $     9,690,000.00
three years of annual costs  $   19,200,000.00
tax on projected profit  $   12,423,000.00
Value after tax  $   38,677,000.00

Operating Wind Farms

Currently Windlab has significant equity in two large operating or soon to be operating Wind Farms, Kiata, in Melbourne’s North West which has now been operating for just over a year, and Kennedy Energy Park in Northern Queensland that has completed construction and will be connected to the grid in the coming months. Both projects were originally found and developed using Windlab’s proprietary technology Windscape, with Windlab then subsequently selling down equity in the project to help fund development. Windlab owns 25% of the Kiata wind farm and 50% of Kennedy, and combined these two projects have a book value of $43.6 million on the Windlab balance sheet.
Kiata is a 30 megawatt 9 turbine windfarm in Northern Victoria that had its first full year of operation in 2018, with a total profit of $4.57 million for the year. Wind farms are thought to have a useful life of roughly 20 years, after which significant refurbishment costs are needed in order to continue operation. If we discount these future cash flows at a rate of 7%, (which seems reasonable given the relative low risk of an established wind farm) we get a total value for Kiata of just under $43.9 million. This values Windlab’s stake at $10.97 million.

To value Kennedy is a little more complex, as it has not yet begun operation. However, we know that the project is a 56-megawatt project, combining 41 megawatts of wind with 15 megawatts of solar. The plant also has 2 megawatts of battery storage to help modulate supply and allow storage of excess energy in non-peak times. If we extrapolate the annual profit per megawatt of capacity of Kiata in 2018 of $152,353 and assign the same discount rate, we are left with a value for Kennedy of $83.6 million, or $41.8 million for Windlab’s 50% ownership.

Combined, this gives a value of $52.86M for these two projects. 

Asset management

Windlab’s asset management arm is perhaps the easiest to understand and value. Windlab leverages its expertise by providing ongoing management services to existing wind and solar farms, both that the company has an equity stake in, and to third party independent energy farms or resources. This side of the business is quickly growing, with revenue increasing by 27% in 2018 to $2.97 million, with profit before tax of $610,000, or $427,000 after tax assuming a 30% tax rate. The company signed a significant asset management contract in early 2019 for a solar farm, indicating that they are continuing to grow this business. Given both the significant growth of this area and the broader growth potential of the industry, a P/E ratio of 20 seems coservative, which would value Windlab’s asset management division at 8.5 million.

Software

Lastly, As Windlab has demonstrated ability to use Windscape to develop high-performing Windfarms, it seems only fair to give a value to the Windscape software itself. Windlab is continuing to use this software to identify projects into the future, and the company has proven that this software can provide the company with a significant edge on development projects.  While this is a difficult thing to do, $10,000,000 seems like a conservative valuation, considering both Windlab’s historical performance and the likely growth of the energy sector in the future.


Putting it all together

Area Value
Development Projects  $   38,677,000.00
Operating wind farms  $   52,770,000.00
Asset Management business  $     8,500,000.00
Windscape software  $   10,000,000.00
Cash  $   14,622,414.00
Liabilities -$   10,755,130.00
Total  $ 113,814,284.00
Shares outstanding (diluted) 73848070
Price  $                     1.54

If we add together the values as per the above calculations, we are left with a total value of $113.8 million for the company, or $1.54. As the company is currently trading around the $1.02 mark, this suggests the company is significantly undervalued at its current price. 

Aurora Labs


Aurora Labs is one of a long list of ASX pre-revenue IPO’s that achieved massive gains before crashing when the much-hyped revenue failed to materialize.  Listing in August 2016, the stock peaked at just under $4 in February 2017 for a nearly 20X return and then lost 90% of its value over the next year. Recently though, Aurora has been staging somewhat of a comeback. Their shares were trading at around 36 cents in September of this year when they began to release announcements regarding progress with their Large Format Printer. The market reacted with predictable over-exuberance and within a few weeks the stock was back over 90 cents. That investors have willingly jumped back into bed with a company like Aurora is a pretty sad indictment of the Australian small cap market. Aurora’s brief history on the ASX is a tale littered with failed targets, unclear communication and a steadfast refusal to own up to any of their mistakes. It is also a story worth knowing for anyone interested in investing in pre-revenue stocks.


Aurora labs was founded in August 2014 by David Budge, an engineer and product designer from WA when he posted on Facebook that he wanted to start a rocket company. The rocket idea didn’t last long, and the company quickly switched to 3D printing. If you are to believe the official company version of events, within 18 months of that Facebook post Aurora labs developed three separate revolutionary techniques for 3D metal printing with major implications for reducing costs, increasing speed and managing 3D printing software. What exactly these inventions were has never clearly been articulated, but with a message as enticing and marketable as this a public listing was inevitable and by June 2016 Aurora had launched their prospectus to raise $3.5 million.

While the prospectus was largely focused on returns far in the future, a key point in their initial pitch was their Small Format Printer. This printer was designed to be substantially cheaper than their competitors and was apparently already in beta testing with 31 secured pre-sales. The Small Format Printers price was listed in in the prospectus at between $40,000 and $43,000 USD each, so this was a significant amount of sales for such a young company.

The shares listed on the 12thof August 2016 at $0.20 cents and shot up in value quickly. In December 2016 they announced that they were shipping their first unit of the Small Format Printer to customers and by the 10th of February 2017 the share price had reached a staggering $3.93, representing returns of just under 1,900% since listing and a market capitalization of over $216 million. 

As is the story with many pre-revenue companies though, it was when the revenue was supposed to materialize that the wheels fell off. On their quarterly activities report on the 28th of April 2017 the company announced that they were now ready to focus on sales, as they had completed the necessary certifications and testing to sell the Small Format Printer internationally. Despite these assurances, cash flows from sales for the March to June period was only $103,000 and dropped to $6,000 for the next quarter. For a company whose product was apparently market leading with a strong order bank of pre-sales this made no sense. How could a company selling 3D printers for $40,000 USD each take revenue of only $6,000 a quarter when they apparently had an order bank of 30 pre-sales to fill?

Investors looking for an answer had to wait until November 2017, when the company finally admitted via a market update that the much-vaunted pre-sales had been sold at a fraction of the current prices. Instead of the $40,000 USD listed in the prospectus, the pre-sale prices were for prices between $7,000 and $9,000 AUD. Given the retail price had now risen to USD $49,999, Aurora labs was now deciding to cancel their pre-sales and refund the prospective customers their deposits.

It is hard to understand how Aurora got away with this announcement without a slap on the wrist from the ASX. Until this announcement Aurora had given no indication that their pre-sales were for anything less than their current proposed price, if anything they had worked hard to give the opposite impression.

The below is a direct screenshot from the prospectus, these two sentences come one after the other:

Tag Template - News Hub PRO

Any investor reading the above sentences would have naturally assumed the pre-sale prices were somewhere around $40,000 USD. In addition to this quote the pre-sales are mentioned on 6 other occasions in the prospectus, and not once is the fact that the pre-sales were sold at heavily discounted prices disclosed.
After listing, the company continued to mention pre-sales in their announcements. In a January 2017 announcement the company stated that:

Tag Template - News Hub PRO
For a product that’s main selling point is its cheapness compared to its competitors, how does a sale at less than 25% of the current market price indicate demand from “all corners of the globe?” It is the equivalent of a new phone company using sales of $200 smart phones as evidence for demand of an identical model at $800.

Another obvious question is why Aurora waited until November to dishonour their pre-sales. At the time of their prospectus their retail price was already considerably higher than the pre-sale prices, yet the company waited more than 12 months before deciding to cancel the pre-sale orders. The obvious explanation that they were keeping their pre-sales on the book as long as possible to maintain their share price is hard to overlook.

Even leaving the pre-sales aside, Aurora has made some dramatic promises regarding their Small Format Printer that have failed to materialize. In April 2017, the CEO David Budge gave a speech at an investors conference where he said:
A lot of investors took notice of this statement, as if true it meant the company was close to achieving annual revenue of $18 million USD a year from the Small Format Printer alone. 

However when their annual report for 2017 was released more than 15 months later, revenue was only $329,970, indicating sales of not even 1 device per month. In typical Australian small cap fashion, not only does the annual report fail to explain why sales were so far off this forecast, it doesn’t even acknowledge that this forecast was made.

You might be wondering at this point why I’m bothering to write about this. Another Micro Cap company played the PR game and managed to pump the share price to a ridiculous valuation with a bunch of promises that they never delivered on. Hardly a unique occurrence for the ASX. It matters because too often the companies getting funding on the ASX seem to be bad companies with good PR departments.  A central promise of capitalism is that money can be efficiently allocated from those with money to those who need it. At it’s best, the share market is an effective vehicle for getting money from investors into the hands of companies with great ideas and limited funds. The reality is every dollar spent funding or purchasing a stock of a hype company is a dollar not going to a legitimate pre-revenue company, and there are a lot of legitimate pre-revenue companies out there that desperately need money.

The tendency of companies to make wild predictions also puts pressure on other small business owners looking for investment to be equally optimistic. A friend of mine owns a growing business that has achieved impressive growth of around 40% a year for the last couple of years. Their latest forecasts for 2019 increases this growth to nearly 100% for FY18, yet investors so used to seeing forecasts like Aurora’s remain unimpressed and have asked if there are any ways to increase this. For the industry my friend is in, growth at more than 100% would likely have serious affects on his margins and risk profile, but this is a difficult point to make to investors habituated to start-ups promising multi-million dollar revenues in years.

As investors, we have a responsibility to be more critical when presented with the next slick presentation light on detail but big on promises. If this is asking too much then at the very least we need to ensure that executives of small companies are held accountable for their promises. When a CEO says that he is intending to sell 30 devices a month, he shouldn’t be able to release an annual report 15 months later showing total sales of less than 10 for the year without even bothering to address what went wrong.  And when that same CEO starts making chest beating announcements about their latest product, the market’s reaction should be a little more suspicious.

Who Can Invest in an IPO?

The post Who Can Invest in an IPO? appeared first on ClickIPO.

Top 5 Most Common Questions for Using Drones to $ave Money and Improve Water Management

Hey Prairie Farmers! You know drones can work miracles for your drainage strategy, but you’ve got questions. We’ve got you covered. Drone technology is more efficient and useful than ever before. You can map out every inch of a field to a ±5cm degree of vertical accuracy! The reports and custom solutions produced have saved...

Croplogic

When I first saw the Croplogic IPO I was pretty excited. Lately ASX IPOs seem to have been an endless list of speculative mining startups and suspicious Chinese organizations, so its nice to see a company that seems genuinely innovative. Based on technology and crop management techniques developed by the New Zealand government research institute Plant & Food Research, the company is looking to revolutionize the agronomics sector with various technological and modelling-based solutions. This includes both patented electronic monitoring devices that provide live soil moisture levels from the field, as well as sophisticated modelling that allows farmers to predict moisture levels and show optimal times for watering and fertilizer application. The idea is that this technology will allow agronomists to spend less time driving from field to field taking samples, while giving farmers a higher level of service at the same time. The company has been around for five years, and has completed a few trials with large multinationals. While they claim these trials have been promising, they haven’t really amounted to much revenue as can be seen by the meagre profit and loss report.

Tag Template - News Hub PRO


Croplogic is seeking to raise up to 8 million, with an indicative market capitalization of $23.9 million based on a maximum subscription.

Strategy

One interesting things about Croplogic is that they have decided to grow by acquiring established agronomy businesses rather than organically (if you’ll excuse the pun.) This is based on the idea that the agricultural market is suspicious of new entrants and values existing relationships. Croplogic therefore intends to purchase traditional agronomics businesses then slowly introduce Croplogic’s various innovations to their customers. While I understand the thinking behind this (at a previous role I saw first-hand a European fertilizer company fail spectacularly in their expansion into Australia due to difficulties selling to suspicious Australian farmers), there are a few factors that make me worried this strategy won’t work. Post listing, Croplogic will have only around 8 million dollars with which to buy the very specific type of company they are looking for (they are specifically targeting potato agronomics companies) in the limited amount of time they have before shareholders start getting impatient. With such specific criteria and a limited amount of time, it seems a real risk they will be forced to pay above market prices for the first suitable company they find.

Croplogic’s most recent acquisition doesn’t really inspire confidence either. On the 28thof April 2017 Croplogic acquired a company called Proag services, an agricultural consulting business based in Washington state USA. Croplogic paid $1.4 Million AUD, with another $1.25 million to be paid over the next few years provided Proag’s revenue does not decline sharply. As a test case for Croplogics acquisition model, the Proag purchase does raise a few questions.

While in the financial year ending March 2016 the business made a profit of $140,000 AUD, in 2017 this had reduced to a loss of $24,650 (to make things simpler, I am using AUD for both the revenue and purchase price, despite Proag being an American company). This loss was caused mainly by small a decrease in revenue from 2.24 million to 2.14, and an increase in operating costs from $580,000 to $690,000. To be clear, the FY17 financial year ended before Croplogic bought the business, so these costs cannot be easily attributed to acquisition expenses. While there could potentially be other factors that explain the 2017 loss, 2.65 Million seems hugely unreasonable for a company that lost money last financial year, and even seems on the steep side if you just take the FY16 numbers into account.  Were Croplogic so desperate to secure an acquisition before the IPO that they ended up paying more than they should have for a struggling company? As an outsider it certainly looks like that.

Management

One of the things I look for in an IPO is strong founder with a real passion for the company. Bigtincan’s David Keane and Oliver’s Jason Gunn are two great examples of this. In addition to being good businessmen, both founders seem to have a real passion for their respective companies and expertise in their specific industries. You get the sense with both Jason and David that they have invested personally in their companies, and will stick by them for as long as it takes.
In contrast, the managing director of Croplogic Jamie Cairns has only been with Croplogic for just over a year and has a background in internet companies. The CFO James Jones has been with the company for even less time, and last worked at a private equity firm. While they both seem capable enough, they don’t seem to be experts in agronomics, and it’s hard to imagine either of them sticking around if they were offered a more lucrative role at a different company.
Powerhouse Ventures

The largest Croplogic shareholder is the ASX listed Powerhouse Ventures, owning both directly and through its subsidiaries roughly 20% of the Croplogic stock post listing. I like to think of Powerhouse Ventures as New Zealand’s answer to Elrich Bachman from Sillicon Valley. The company invests in early stage New Zealand companies, most typically those that use technology developed in connection to New Zealand universities with the hope that these can eventually be sold later for a profit.

To put it mildly, Powerhouse Ventures has not been going that well lately. Listing originally for $1.07 in October 2016, the company now trades at around $0.55, following problems with management, higher than expected expenses, and difficulties with a number of start-up investments. 
This is a concern for any potential Croplogic investor, as one of Powerhouse Ventures easiest ways to lock in some profits and generate cash would be to offload their Croplogic shares. Considering the size of their stake in Croplogic, this would have disastrous effects on the Croplogic share price.

Summary

As you can probably guess if you’ve read this far, I will not be investing in Croplogic. While the shares are undeniably being sold for a pretty cheap price, their chances of success seem so small buying shares would feel more like getting a spin on a roulette wheel than a long-term investment. When you read through the prospectus, you get the feeling that the company is a weird miss-match of various technologies dreamt up in Kiwi research labs that some over-excited public servants felt would be a commercial success. Considering the minimal progress that has been made in the last five years, they probably should have stuck to writing journal articles. 
Tag Template - News Hub PRO

Recent articles

spot_img