|
I've got kind of an unreasonable portion of my net worth sitting in my ING Direct savings account. The interest they pay has dropped from like, 4.5% to I think .87% in the last few years so I'm finally thinking that I should probably move some money somewhere with a little more return. I've already got my retirement accounts with Vanguard so I was thinking of moving $4-5000 from savings into either the Vanguard LifeStrategy Income Fund (VASIX) or their Total Bond Market ETF (BND). Anything I should be considering in deciding which? This money is medium-term savings that I don't yet have a plan for (working towards a house down payment or new car at some point or something).
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
smackfu posted:I know market timing is bad and all that (I read Bogleheads) but I'm wondering if it makes sense to consolidate my investments into US based funds, rather than trying to diversify worldwide, given how bleak the Euro is looking. Thoughts? I know market timing is bad, but should I time the market?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:I know market timing is bad, but should I time the market? I love how every few pages this exact quote gets posted in reply to something. It's never the same question that summons it, and yet it always is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 03:08
|
|
|
T0MSERV0 posted:I love how every few pages this exact quote gets posted in reply to something. It's never the same question that summons it, and yet it always is. It is amazing that this seems to be so pervasive in people's head. Even if you read and claim to believe the benefits of low cost passive indexing, it still creeps in that maybe you can do better. It is hard to get that part of your ego to shut the hell up. It took me reading about 20 books, all telling the same information, for me to really really believe it, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 12:16
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:It is amazing that this seems to be so pervasive in people's head. Even if you read and claim to believe the benefits of low cost passive indexing, it still creeps in that maybe you can do better. It is hard to get that part of your ego to shut the hell up. It took me reading about 20 books, all telling the same information, for me to really really believe it, really. It took years of my active portion of my portfolio severely underperforming my passive to convince me. Only when I compared performance did I believe it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 13:54
|
|
|
Aren't these "passive" indexed funds still managed by someone? In that case, it seems that by actively managing your own investments, you're trying to do better, in your spare time, than someone whose job it is to make money. That rarely works out well in any field.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Aren't these "passive" indexed funds still managed by someone? In that case, it seems that by actively managing your own investments, you're trying to do better, in your spare time, than someone whose job it is to make money. That rarely works out well in any field. Yes they are, but it doesn't require a whole lot of work. They are tracking an index, and there can be deviations from it, but all in all they pretty much have it down. It's when you get into these fancy-dancy index ETFs (that are passing themselves off as passive funds) that attempt to do 2x, or some obscure international region that it really becomes a real problem. Building a fund to match the S&P 500 is fairly trivial work for a portfolio manager. Buy 500 stocks proportionate to the makeup of the S&P, take new dollars and buy more, sell the proportion of those that are redeemed. You are dead on though, I always encounter people who try to become stock wizards when their excellent at what they normally do. I tell them to go out and do MORE of what they're great at, and just leave their investments to a nice solid asset allocation of index funds. (poker players are notorious for this for some reason)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
I was wondering what people's opinions were on using a Whole Life Insurance Policy as a way to help save for retirement. I'm not saying to put everything into it, but to use it as a part of retirement planning. I guess my though is that you don't really start to see returns on them until after 16 years or so, but by the time you reach retirement they can see a growth of anywhere between 5%-8% that you can take out if needed. Specifically I've been looking at Northwestern Mutual's "Permanent insurance". I guess the thinkings is, between me and my wife one of us will die eventually and receive the other person's full death benefit. Meanwhile until we die we can take money out of it, and NWM is saying their interests rates on whole life insurance accounts have historically always been between that 5-8% number. I guess this sounds like a pretty good figure, and I have just had horrible luck with the stock market and it seems like a safe way to put some money away that is guaranteed to be there when we reach 65 or so. And if anyone recommends it or currently does it, how big of a policy do you have? We're 27/26 years old, I also do a RothIRA account that I max out every year (not doing so hot... lost a lot of money in GM awhile back), and my wife is a teacher so she SHOULD be receiving a pension (but we can't really depend on that with all the poo poo going on with the illinois teacher pension plan). I guess I am worried that like my parents who are retiring now, that the market will be poo poo when I plan to retire and lose it all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:I was wondering what people's opinions were on using a Whole Life Insurance Policy as a way to help save for retirement. I'm not saying to put everything into it, but to use it as a part of retirement planning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:I think the general advice is that if you need life insurance, buy life insurance. If you need to invest for retirement, invest for retirement. Using life insurance as a retirement investment vehicle can expose you to a lot of unforeseen fees. How so? The money goes in after taxes, comes out untaxed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:How so? The money goes in after taxes, comes out untaxed. So do Roths Whole life insurance policies are a rip off. You pay very high fees for an unremarkable investment account. The worst part of it, the 'savings' component of whole life does not pass to your beneficiary, just the face value. Buy term insurance, invest the difference you would pay between the whole policy and the term, and you will be MUCH better off. Check this out: http://www.daveramsey.com/article/the-truth-about-life-insurance/
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:I was wondering what people's opinions were on using a Whole Life Insurance Policy as a way to help save for retirement. I'm not saying to put everything into it, but to use it as a part of retirement planning. If something has a high expected return and low expected risk, be VERY suspicious. The only people who are going to tell you that whole-life is a good investment are people who sell insurance policies. The only reason they're going to tell you it's a good investment is because they make money off of selling the policy to you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:I was wondering what people's opinions were on using a Whole Life Insurance Policy as a way to help save for retirement. I'm not saying to put everything into it, but to use it as a part of retirement planning. 2) There are circumstances in which it could make sense to buy cash value insurance, but if you are not maxing your roths and 401ks, then those circumstances certainly don't apply to you. Do you not have a 401k available?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
gvibes posted:1) Never ever ever buy anything from Northwestern Mutual. They are utter cock smokers. More specifically, their fees are ridiculous. Even leaving aside the fact that if you die unexpectedly your cash value disappears, NWM funds have crap returns. Find an insurance broker you can trust and have them price policies if you are dumb and insist on doing this. Don't buy from scam artists. I'm sure those guys at NWM didn't MEAN to put that Variable Annuity in an IRA....
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
So I got a pamphlet from Vanguard / my company talking about some of the new tools they have available for people and one of them is the Vanguard Managed Account Program. For a fee, they help you plan out how to meet your goals, will rebalance what you have currently, and keep track of things in the future. Says it's about $5 per month pert $15k in your account with discounts if your balance exceeds $100k (which mine currently does). My questions are how does this rate compare with other 401k management services elsewhere and (more importantly), am I complete moron for blowing money on these kinds of professional services when I should just put effort into learning how to do things right on my own? I know that part of the foundation of this thread is educating everyone on how to do these things themselves but I'm curious what the consensus is about using professional help. Other possibly pertinent info: I'm 27 and I'm currently maxing out my contributions for the year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
After years of being poor then working as a dodgy "independent contractor" and loving off on the retirement planning side, I've got myself a stable job with a 401k. I know I've got a bit of catching up to do, but I could use some help with my portfolio distribution because I have no loving idea what I'm doing. I just turned 28, and am currently investing 4% with a 4% match from the company. Once my wife gets some solid employment, I'm going to take that up to 6%(max company match) and then probably higher once we get some savings built up. I'll probably need to open an IRA at some point in the future, but my primary goal right now is to just get the 401k moving and fix the rest of my finances. My current allocations are: Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund Institutional Shares: 19.26% Target Retirement 2050 Trust 1 80.74% The 2050 trust is allocated as such and will supposedly change over time to be a more conservative fund as I get older: 1 Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Institutional Shares 62.9% 2 Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Institutional Plus Shares 26.9% 3 Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund Institutional Shares** 10.2% Is this dumb? I'm pretty clueless about all of this, but my family has preached the index fund gospel and done well with it. Would I be better served by selecting some individual funds and diversifying more?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 07:50
|
|
|
Cael posted:So I got a pamphlet from Vanguard / my company talking about some of the new tools they have available for people and one of them is the Vanguard Managed Account Program. For a fee, they help you plan out how to meet your goals, will rebalance what you have currently, and keep track of things in the future. Says it's about $5 per month pert $15k in your account with discounts if your balance exceeds $100k (which mine currently does). It's cheaper than Fidelity's professional services (which is 1% last time they called). As to whether it's worth it or not, it's sort of up to you. I don't think they'll steer you into anything you don't want, and I also don't think they are going to do anything mind-blowing that you couldn't figure out on your own. But if you're someone who just doesn't want to deal with learning the stuff and wants to focus your time elsewhere, it might be worth it. I'd just be sure they understand exactly what your goals are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 08:00
|
|
|
Citizen Z posted:After years of being poor then working as a dodgy "independent contractor" and loving off on the retirement planning side, I've got myself a stable job with a 401k. I know I've got a bit of catching up to do, but I could use some help with my portfolio distribution because I have no loving idea what I'm doing. First off, bumping up to that 6% should be top priority. You're leaving money on the table from your company over it. Obviously if you absolutely can't do it at this time, it's understandable, but if there is any chance of being able to pull that off, you should do it. They're basically offering you a 2% raise. However, after you reach that 6%, I would stop with them. Open up a Roth IRA on your own and max that out if you can. At 28 years old, that's a lot of years of tax-free earnings. Especially if you can live off your 401k early on in retirement. So basically get to 6%, max out your Roth, and if you still want to do more, you can contribute more to the 401k. As for your allocation, it seems fine. It appears you're going with your age in bonds. Some people go by that and some people go by 120-age. Just depends on how aggressive you want to be. But diversity wise, it's pretty diverse. I guess you could look into some sector funds down the road if there is something you really want, but diversity isn't an issue right now with what you have. I'd focus more on building that up before playing around with stuff. Contributions are going to play a much larger role in your retirement account early on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:First off, bumping up to that 6% should be top priority. You're leaving money on the table from your company over it. Obviously if you absolutely can't do it at this time, it's understandable, but if there is any chance of being able to pull that off, you should do it. They're basically offering you a 2% raise. I'm aware I'm losing out on free money, but it's not an option yet. The wife will hopefully be employed within the month, at which point I'm going to bump the contribution and she'll contribute the maximum to hers as well. Thanks for the info on the allocation. I had no idea about the age in bonds thing, I just picked what seemed potentially reasonable. Is the main reason to pump money into the Roth having some tax-free income at retirement, or is there some other reason I'm missing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 08:56
|
|
|
That's a large part of it (especially at your age), but there are others. One being that you can pull contributions out of it tax and penalty-free (since you already paid tax on this income) in the event of an emergency. While it's not ideal to do it, that's a nice pseudo-emergency fund you have stashed away. The other part is that a Roth, unlike your 401k, doesn't require you to make withdrawls at age 70. So lets say you are able to live on your 401k/traditional IRA until you're 80 years old. You've just gotten another 10 years worth of tax-free earnings out of it. If you contribute regularly from your age on, that can be huge money. Here is an example. Lets say you and your wife put $5000 a year into a Roth IRA from age 30 on till you are 70. At 6% growth, that would be $871,667 when you reach 70 and can no longer contribute to it. Now lets say you are able to live off your 401k or other income/investments until you are 80. At 6% return, you will make an additional $700,000 in tax-free income over those 10 years and would have almost $1.6 million in it. You can make withdrawls you need to live on and still continue to earn money from it tax-free until you die. Another bonus is what happens if you die. Your wife can take it over without any changes to it and treat it as her own. You can leave the Roth to your child too and they are only required to make withdrawls based on their own IRS life-expectancy. So if you die at 70 and leave it to your child who is 40, their IRS life-expectancy may be 90 and the could take out the minimum withdrawls for 50 years while earning even more tax-free growth. Essentially a nice tax-free annuity for your child with whatever you don't use. This is assuming the rules for it stay the same. Hope that makes sense. One other things. The age in bonds is just one approach people use. You'll probably get different opinions from different people regarding it. Some feel you should be much more heavily invested in stocks at your age (120-age). Some others here might be able to give their opinion on it or you might be able to read some other strategies online. I didn't want to make it sound like that is exactly what you should do. Niwrad fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Dec 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 09:57
|
|
|
So, I just turned 28 and I'm thinking it's a good idea to start a Roth IRA. My questions are these: Which funds and distributions? Which broker? Looks like the consensus is Vanguard, so feel free to skip this question. Can I just drop 5k in at the beginning of the calendar year? Or should I drop 5k in before the end of this year? I can't afford to just drop 5k and then drop another 5k next month. If I drop 5k in (whenever I do) should I just drop another 5k in that same date every year? Is there any timing to a lump deposit like that? Oh and in case anyone is wondering, I'm already contributing up to company match in a Roth 401k through my company plan. I may ask for fund distribution recommendations for that account after I get this IRA stuff sorted. And if this stuff is all up to date and answered somewhere else just point me there or nudge me in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
As I understand, you can even put 5k into your Roth and temporarily invest it in a money market, which seems to basically just be a "temporary" holding account for all intents and purposes. But that will still count towards your annual contribution. That's basically what I did until I decided to just buy the Target Retirement 2050 fund for now. totalnewbie fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Dec 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Roth IRA has CY annual max contribution of 5000 so if you put in 5k now, you can put in another 5k any time in 2012 whereas if you put in 5k in January 2012 (or any time in 2012, actually), you cannot put in any more until January 2013. So as far as that goes, I think you're better off putting in 5k now to get the 2011 contribution in and then putting in 5k in 2012 when you can. I'm pretty much in the exact same boat as you and that's what I did. You actually have until April 15, 2012 to contribute for the 2011 year. When you transfer money to the Roth IRA between Jan 1-Apr 15, there will be a checkbox asking you if the contribution is for 2011 or 2012. edit: Actually, April 15, 2012 falls on a Sunday so I think you have until April 16, 2012 to contribute, but that's just splitting hairs. lowcrabdiet fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Dec 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
notmetalenough posted:Which funds and distributions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
My current employer doesn't offer a 401(k), so I've signed up to start a Roth IRA with Schwab - I'd prefer Vanguard, which I used until I had to empty my account for grad school, but I'd like to keep my money somewhere until I scrounge up $3,000. Until I hit that goal, is SWPPX (Schwab's S&P 500 index) a good bet, or should I go for something more aggressive? I'm 26, and I plan on contributing 200-300 a month.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
surrender posted:My current employer doesn't offer a 401(k), so I've signed up to start a Roth IRA with Schwab - I'd prefer Vanguard, which I used until I had to empty my account for grad school, but I'd like to keep my money somewhere until I scrounge up $3,000. Until I hit that goal, is SWPPX (Schwab's S&P 500 index) a good bet, or should I go for something more aggressive? I'm 26, and I plan on contributing 200-300 a month. FWIW the Vanguard STAR fund has a $1000 minimum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
Thufir posted:FWIW the Vanguard STAR fund has a $1000 minimum. We need to add to the thread title that Vanguard target funds are $1000 minimum as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:We need to add to the thread title that Vanguard target funds are $1000 minimum as well. poo poo, I didn't even notice that! I was going to invest in the Target 2050 fund anyway. Well, it looks like I can cancel my transfer to Schwab, so I'll go with that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
surrender posted:My current employer doesn't offer a 401(k), so I've signed up to start a Roth IRA with Schwab - I'd prefer Vanguard, which I used until I had to empty my account for grad school, but I'd like to keep my money somewhere until I scrounge up $3,000. Until I hit that goal, is SWPPX (Schwab's S&P 500 index) a good bet, or should I go for something more aggressive? I'm 26, and I plan on contributing 200-300 a month. Schwab is fine, they actually have some competitive rates now. What about just picking one of their target retirement funds? Schwab Indexed Retirement Trust Fund 2050 (SIRT 2050) seems like an ideal pick. Low expense ratio and diverse. Nothing wrong with what you are in now I guess, but it's putting 100% into domestic equities. Not a huge deal at the amount you have in it, but something you'd want to look at changing down the line. edit: Looks like you're staying with Vanguard which is good too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
I have a fairly interesting situation, and I wanted to ask the thread for advice. I've been in school for what seems like forever (this is my third post-secondary degree) and I'm finally starting a great job after the new year. The flip side of this, however, is that I've never invested anything up to this point as a result of being a poor student. Not a single dollar. Obviously I'd like to play catchup, and for the most part I have the financial ability to do so and I'm still fairly young. I'm not sure I could max out my 401k contributions right away, due to school loans, but I think I could come close. I could at the very least contribute to my 401k up to the employer match (4%), but here's the problem. My income is going to be very close to the AGI where I can't fully contribute to a Roth IRA; in a few years, it's probably going to be at the level where I can't contribute at all. So, in a nutshell: if I'm really behind in my savings, but have the ability to play catchup, but hypothetically also no longer have the ability to contribute to an IRA due to my income level, what are my options after maxing out my 401k contributions? Where do I throw any hypothetical excess cash?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 12:09
|
|
|
Hopefully someone can back me up on this one. If you can't contribute to a Roth for AGI reasons, you also can't get a tax deduction on a Traditional IRA (which is the whole point of it). However, you can do a backdoor Roth IRA. Here's essentially what you'll do. Setup a Traditional IRA with a provider (Vanguard, Fidelity, Schwab, etc). Fund it. Once your contribution posts, open a Roth IRA and fund it by selling the shares in your Traditional IRA. And like that, you have a Roth IRA. It's a minor pain in the rear end, but your provider should be able to walk you through it with ease. You'll need to fill out a form on your taxes (Form 8606 or any tax program or accountant will know what to do). So basically, contribute up to your employer match, fund a backdoor Roth IRA up to $5000 a year, and then if you still want to do more, you can contribute more to your 401k. But a Roth will be valuable for you, particularly if you'll have a chunk of change in your 401k.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 12:52
|
|
|
Flashdance posted:I have a fairly interesting situation, and I wanted to ask the thread for advice. I've been in school for what seems like forever (this is my third post-secondary degree) and I'm finally starting a great job after the new year. The flip side of this, however, is that I've never invested anything up to this point as a result of being a poor student. Not a single dollar. The recommended priority is generally 1) 401(k) up to employer match 2) Roth IRA to max 3) 401(k) to max 4) Take a vacation or something, christ 5) Taxable account Once you no longer qualify for one item on the list, you just move down the list. So without an IRA, you'd max out your 401(k) and then save any extra in a taxable account. Yeah, it's taxable, but if you hold everything for at least a year (which is the whole point of saving for retirement) you'll only pay capital gains tax on selling your holdings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 13:20
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Hopefully someone can back me up on this one. Yup. Backdoor that poo poo until (if) they ever close the loophole. To be clear: 1. Contribute to the maximum 401k match for sure. That is free money and it is dumb to miss out on that. 2. After the match, backdoor a Roth IRA up to 5000 a year. 3. If you still want to contribute, then top off your 401k. 4. Taxable is final option after all that Although with 3 post grad educations to probably pay for, those loans are higher priority than anything other than the match I would say. Student loans are the worst possible debt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
Yeah, I would put them as: 1. 401(k) to match 2. Roth IRA 3. Student loans 4. max 401(k)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
Thanks all. ThisSaint Fu posted:Yeah, I would put them as: was more or less the short-to-mid term plan. I didn't really mention the loan repayments since anything I'm investing is obviously going to be after those minimum payments are made. I keep forgetting about the backdoor Roth IRA, so that's good to know. I guess I just throw excess savings at student loans for a while, since paying them off is basically guaranteed return.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
No no no, not "after minimum payments". You are paying interest on your student loans that is probably at least equal to, if not significantly higher than, the expected return on your retirement investments. Beyond the "free money" from the 401(k) matching, your student loans are higher priority for every spare dollar you have, until or unless they are costing you less than you're earning via retirement savings. Arguably, you may also prioritize tax-advantaged savings, but only to the extent that the additional benefit of the tax advantage outweighs the gap in cost from the loan interest vs. the return from the retirement savings. And, as someone else pointed out, always keep in mind that student loan debts are the devil because they cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. Until your debts are paid, you are a wage-slave; get rid of them as fast as you can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Sorry, I left a part of out of that last post. When I said investing after minimum payments, I meant the 401k up to employer match and maybe the Roth IRA rollover, not anything more significant or, at this point, stupid. Anything above that obviously goes to student loans. Also, a large % of my student loans cost less in interest than what that same money would currently be earning if invested. I'll be able to do both - my original question was simply what to do if the Roth IRA was no longer an option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
I think maxing (or as close to it as you can) your Roth might be equal to or better than student loans because Roth is use it or lose it. You might not be getting a better return now but getting the most money into your Roth while you're young makes sense to me. If you could pay off the loans and then go back and still have access to the years you missed with your Roth I'd say do that, but you can't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
I briefly skimmed through this thread to try and find answers to my questions, but did not see anything directly relative so please excuse me if this has already been answered. I currently contribute to a 403b plan at the non profit hospital I work at. There is no employer match and I have to manage the investments myself. This is a huge burden for me and if I don't constantly watch the market, it tanks. I will be getting vested in the company pension plan this year and was thinking about rolling my 403b into a target planned traditional IRA. My wife has a 401k which she maxes to the employer match and it is doing well. We both have Roth IRA's with T. Rowe price in target 2045 retirement funds. Neither are being maxed out and get about 2500 contributed per year. My questions are, would it be wise to roll over the 403b into a traditional IRA? How would I go about doing this? If I do roll over, should I shift my contributions to max out the Roth and then contribute the rest into the traditional? I am 33 and my wife is 30. We also contribute money into a ING savings account for our 3 year old's college fund. We were considering a 529 plan, but that is a completely different type of question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:39 |
|
|
Choicecut posted:I briefly skimmed through this thread to try and find answers to my questions, but did not see anything directly relative so please excuse me if this has already been answered. Without an employee match you definitely should contribute to your Roth IRAs first. With a 403b you can rollover the balance into a traditional IRA (and subsequently do the backdoor Roth that has been described here in the past few pages) at any time, and I believe as often as you like. I always recommend getting out of the employee sponsored plans if possible due to the limited funds and potentially higher fees. They are valuable, however, when you contribute your max to your IRAs and still wish to do more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2011 17:11
|
|