May 30, 2012

Warwick's Pension Numbers Serve as National Example

Marc Comtois

The local efforts by the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity to shine a light on the pension mess have brought national attention:

A locally published interview with a member of the national pension task force, assembled by the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity, has caused a stir in Warwick, puzzling the Mayor, confusing the local paper, and leading to an online rebuttal. Even the Providence Journal has covered the action.

On May 24, the Warwick Beacon published an article from an interview with Eileen Norcross, senior research fellow and lead researcher on the State and Local Policy Project with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, attempting to refute her warnings that the City of Warwick is not accurately representing the true scope of the liabilities in its locally administered pension plans.

Norcross published a pie-chart, which she has now updated:

Norcross explains the logic behind her adjustments:
The chart shows Warwick, Rhode Island’s municipal budget (excluding the school budget) carved up according to current costs for funding the town’s pension benefits, Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB), current employee healthcare costs and General Obligation bond payment. The figures come from official budget documents.

My value-added is that I estimate the additional amount needed to fully fund pensions based on the risk-free discount rate. It’s a ballpark estimate backed into based on the plans’ valuation reports. The actuaries, with access to all the plan data, can model the effect of applying the risk-free rate to plan costs more precisely.

Follow the link to read her entire explanation (and here is another national perspective supporting her analysis from National Review), but here is the root of it:
Public pensions represent a secure, government-guaranteed benefit and are not likely to be defaulted upon. Public pensions should be valued like a government bond. The rate to use is the return on Treasury bonds, currently 2.3 percent.

But what policymakers are worked up over is not the economic principles behind discount rate selection. It’s the practical effect that many politicians and plan sponsors protest, as The New York Times story of yesterday highlights. Lowering the discount rate increases the liability and the amount needed to fund the plan. That has a real impact on the budget, as the Warwick chart shows.

Even if you buy the argument that the 3% figure used by Norcross is too low, it's still fantasy-land to use 7.5% as a basis.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

3% may be generous since the actual 13 year returns of the stock markets are ZERO. DJIA, NASDAQ and the S & P 500 are all stuck right about where they were 13 years ago.
Japan, with a catastrophic Debt-GDP ratio (and that's right where we're headed baby) has a 25 year stock market return of NEGATIVE numbers.
Yet progressives still drink that Bob Walsh Kool Aid.

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at May 30, 2012 2:53 PM

Mark I really don’t know about the benchmark of 7.5% being fantasy-land as the Hawaii Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) has been showing a lot of double digit gains in the past years. Looks like Hawaii has found a winning way to invest the funds for great returns. It appears everything loss in the recession has been gained back.

According to the an article in the Honolulu Star Advertiser dated May, 16, 2012 by reporter Dave Segal and posted POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST titled: “Strong quarter lifts state pension fund by 8.3%; The ERS approaches its peak asset level as investors embrace risk once again” he wrote the following:

“The ERS fund provides retirement, disability and survivor benefits to 111,648 active, retired and inactive state and county employees.”

“The ERS performance beat the median 7.7 percent return of 26 public funds with assets of $1 billion or more. The ERS return also exceeded its policy benchmark —consisting of various index funds — of 7.5 percent.”

“It was the second straight positive quarter and the 10th gain in the past 12 quarters for the ERS fund. The peak level for assets was $11.7 billion on Sept. 30, 2007.”

(The following was a graphic chart in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser newspaper article May 16, 2012 related to the above article).
“Tracking the Money
The State Employees’ Retirement System Pension Fund rose in third quarter 2012.

FY * 2012 3Q** Gain/loss +8.3% Total Assets (in Billions) $11.5
FY* 2012 2Q*** Gain/loss +5.5% Total Assets (in Billions) $10.7
FY* 2012 1Q****Gain/loss -11.2% Total Assets (in Billions) $10.2
FY* 2011……………Gain/loss +20.7%Total Assets (in Billions) $11.6
FY* 2010……………Gain/loss +11.7%Total Assets (in Billions) $9.8
FY* 2009……………Gain/loss -18.7%Total Assets (in Billions) $8.8
FY* 2008……………Gain/loss -3.4%Total Assets (in Billions) $10.8
FY* 2007……………Gain/loss +17.7%Total Assets (in Billions) $11.5
FY* 2006……………Gain/loss +11.1%Total Assets (in Billions) $9.9
FY* 2005……………Gain/loss +11.3%Total Assets (in Billions) $9.2
FY* 2004……………Gain/loss -15.8%Total Assets (in Billions) $8.6
FY* 2003……………Gain/loss +3.0%Total Assets (in Billions) $7.7
*Ends June 30 of each year; ** Ended March 31, 2012,
***Ended Dec, 31m 2011, ****Ended Sept. 30, 2011
Source: State of Hawaii Employee’s Retirement System Star-Advertiser”

Posted by: KenW at May 30, 2012 4:53 PM

Somebody with more time can run those numbers Ken but I think they fall short of 8% per year.
Plus you don't include (maybe you don't have them) the years back to 1999, which would include the internet stock bubble collapse and reduce the return even more.
It's hard for me to believe Hawaii has had a healthy thirteen year rate of return when all 3 domestic markets, NASDAQ, DJIA and S & P have essentialy returned "zero".
Furthermore, there is (god-dang that pesky google!) this recent article from the Hawaii Reporter titled "Hawaii Employees Retirement System $6.2 Billion in the Hole - Will Taxpayers Have to Make Up the Difference?"

David Shimabukuro, head of the Hawaii public Employees Retirement System (ERS) for 28 years, spent his last hours on the job June 30, 2010 reminiscing on the ups and downs he’s faced for nearly three decades as the administrator for what has become a $10 billion trust.

The trust has made all of the pension payments since opening in 1920, overcoming challenges through several major world events, including wars, economic downturns as devastating as black Monday in 1987, the September 11 terrorist attack and the current recent recession.

While Shimabukuro emphasizes that the fund is stable for now, he and his replacement, administrator Wesley K. Machida, note there are great challenges ahead, particularly because the Hawaii Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) is facing $6.2 billion in unfunded liabilities.

According to the Pew Center of the States, The Trillion Dollar Gap: Underfunded State Retirement Systems and the Road to Reform, the Hawaii ERS has one of the greatest burdens in the nation relative to the size of its payroll and population, with an unfunded liability of one and one-third times the amount of its payroll in fiscal year 2008.

This incredible unfunded liability burden has landed Hawaii on public retirement watch lists, including CNN Money, which noted in a May 2010 article, “Pension funds in at least seven states -- Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, Connecticut, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Hawaii -- could dry up by 2020."

Both the former and current administrators maintain they have a plan to catch up to ensure they can continue to cover the retirement benefits for some 38,000 retirees and the more than 110,000 eligible people in the public retirement system.

So What’s The Problem?

The fund’s unfunded liabilities burden exploded in recent years, but in reality, this has been an ongoing battle says Shimabukuro since the ‘60’s, in large part because of the unique way Hawaii’s government has affected the fund.

For example, the state legislature has raided and transferred money while the city and county of Honolulu did not make required payments to the fund.

In 1967, a unique funding formula set up by Hawaii lawmakers and approved by the governor, began to drain the State and County’s contributions for the general fund, leaving just the 8 percent of investment returns in the fund as mandated by law.

The “excess” interest earnings went to cover a ballooning city and state operating budget instead of remaining in the fund so investments and interest could be optimized.

So while every other retirement fund across the country was using the economic good times to boost revenue for their retirees through returns on their investments, the ERS managers and board watched as their fund was depleted each year for 38 years, with $1.687 billion skimmed, according to ERS administrators.

The money was used for everything from building parks, paying salaries, to funding lawmakers’ favorite social programs and charities.

Then a combination of factors, including a poor investment market, a Hawaii State law that mandates the actuarial assumption at 8 percent return on investments, the generosity of benefits provided, and accounting practices that don’t record pensions when earned, worked against the best intentions of the trustees in charge of the fund.

Now they have to play catch-up to cover the $6.2 billion in unfunded liabilities.

The good news, administrators say, is the legislature and Gov. Linda Lingle addressed in 2005 the financial pension crisis by passing another law that says the fund can no longer be raided to balance the state budget.

Balancing the Budget on the Backs of Future Generations

For decades, the Legislature claimed to have a “balanced budget” according to State law, but legislators actually were using “excess” interest earnings from the public sector pension fund to supplement the general fund.

This is the way it worked: the State would expense, on the books, 100 percent of the total amount due to the fund as the employer contribution, while employees would pay their proportional share.

But then, the general fund would be “credited” all ERS investment income over the legislatively mandated interest rate – currently at 8 percent.

For example, if the State owed $200 million in pension contributions to the fund and excess interest earnings that year were $100 million, the cost to the State for contributions would only be $100 million.

Put simply, the State and Counties – the “employers” – were paying their legally mandated share of benefits.

But the government then, in essence, got a “kickback,” which lessened its overall costs and allowed those funds to be used for other purposes.

ERS administrators say that if total earnings on investments had been retained by the pension fund, the $1.687 billion taken over the years would have been the equivalent of over $4 billion today and the pension fund would be much closer to being fully funded.

Now, taxpayers, who fund the State’s portion, must pay higher costs to cover unfunded liabilities. And active public sector employees must pay a higher percentage of their wages to help pay for their predecessors’ retirement as well as their own.

Public Sector Employees Fight Back, Forcing Changes in Pension Funding

In 2005, the State and Legislature voluntarily stopped diverting ERS’ excess investment earnings and adopted a new funding methodology.

Public employees sued the State over Act 100, passed in 1999, that authorized the State to take the excess of 10 percent investment earnings from 1997-98 and diverted $347 million in contributions.

The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor in 2007.

However, the court did not issue an injunction against the State’s practice. And the State vowed to fight the court’s ruling.

Former administrator Shimabukuro notes in the 2009 report, “The new percentage of payroll funding methodology that was implemented in July 2005 and the moratorium on retirement benefit enhancements will strengthen the ERS financially over the long term. “

The ERS management has its critics including some lawmakers and outside actuary experts.

Some of the criticism includes that the annual required contribution (ARC) from the 1930s to 2005 was based on an Accepted Actuarial Funding Method (AAFM). After 2005, the legislature eliminated that requirement.

The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that the cost of benefits should be reported in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and public employers should pay100 percent of the annual required contribution.

As of FY2009, taxpayers owed government employees $17.6 billion for benefits earned to date.

In 2007, the Legislature increased employers’ contributions and enacted a moratorium on retirement benefit enhancement proposals through January 2011.

Hawaii Delegation Pushed for Amendment to the Federal Pension Protection Act of 2006

A new hybrid contributory plan was implemented by the ERS in July 2006 to provide members with enhanced benefits as compared to the noncontributory plan.

Administrators say they worked with several national public pension plan organizations and the Hawaii Congressional delegation to secure federal legislation to allow for the upgrade of members' past Noncontributory Plan service credits from the 1.25 percent benefit multiplier to the 2 percent benefit multiplier under the Hybrid Plan.

An IRS ruling against the practice gave impetus to these changes. “Our efforts were successful as a special amendment was included in the federal Pension Protection Act of 2006, which enables Hybrid Plan members to use their deferred compensation and tax-sheltered annuity monies to pay for the upgrade,” say ERS administrators .

By collecting enhanced payments now from Hybrid Plan members electing to upgrade their membership service, fund assets will increase. However, benefit payments will be higher once those members retire.

Despite Improvements, Pension Fund is Decreasing

The newly released 2009 ERS Actuarial Valuation Report reveals that the fund’s net assets decreased from 10.8 billion to $8.8 billion in fiscal year 2009.

The trust fund provided $839 million in pension payments to retirees last year and is projected to pay out $1 billion by 2012 to keep up with Hawaii’s aging work force.

On March 31, 2008, the ERS’ total membership of 108,696 was comprised of 66,589 active members, 36,260 retirees and beneficiaries, and 5,847 inactive vested members.

Despite an increase in the both State and employee contribution rates, payouts exceeded contributions by over $75 million last year.

Other factors beyond the diversion of assets by the Legislature have put the fund on shaky ground, according to the report.

Hawaii’s retirees live longer than average and so receive benefits over a longer period of time.
Funding future payments are based on estimated annual pay increases, but the Legislature has funded much larger worker pay increases than anticipated.
The number of retirees is growing, along with increased payments.

The report also states that the fund carries $534 million deferred investment losses, which will decrease the funded ratio and increase the funding period over the next three years without an offsetting actuarial gain.

Administrators also note that despite severe investment losses of as much as -17.5 percent in FY2009, the period between July and December 2009 posted gains of 15.3 percent, helping to offset the earlier decline in stocks.

So What’s the Plan?

Part of the strategy ERS administrators say is to hire qualified investment companies to act on their behalf (they have 34) and to continue to diversity their portfolio.

The diversification aspect is important especially in light of the sometimes-volatile stock market.

For example, in recent weeks, a number of pensions across the country including Hawaii have come under criticism because of their holding of BP Oil and other petroleum stock, which are taking a significant hit since the April 2010 gulf oil spill.

In Hawaii, the BP investment was at $19,912,533, but now as of June 14, 2010, amounts to $11,845,090. However, since that is less than 20 percent of 1 percent of the ERS’ $10 billion portfolio and they expect the value will rebound before stocks are sold, they maintain the loss is on paper, and not actual.

What does this have to do with the Taxpayers and Why Should They Care?

The ERS plan and strategy relies heavily on a hands-off policy by the Legislature and counties, or the unfunded liability and their ability to pay retirees without raising taxes or raiding special funds will be in jeopardy.

Ultimately, whether or not investments return a positive yield, taxpayers are obligated to pay all government workers’ pension benefits as promised through collective bargaining agreements.

Taxpayers will pay benefits when they become due, regardless of whether the fund is solvent or not.

Legislators are able to promise benefits to public sector unions. But to pay for those promises, they mandated a high return on investments, which allowed for a lower state annual contribution.

Also, the Legislature increased the percentage of payroll on today’s workers to help pay for retirees. However, deferring costs to future taxpayers means that the bill will ultimately become due.

Hawaii isn’t the only state with underfunded liabilities. A new joint study released by the Foundation for Educational Choice and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, “Underfunded Teacher Pension Plans: It’s Worse Than You Think,” by Josh Barro and Stuart Buck, reveals nearly $1 trillion in unfunded teacher pension liabilities in 59 funds nationally.

The study shows Hawaii at 67 percent funded, but after adjusting for the discount rate and figuring market value the fund is only 47 percent funded.

The solution for states, the authors say, could be to put employees into a hybrid or defined contribution model like a 401(k).

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle said during the April 2010 Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles said, “Until the public rises up and says, ‘Enough is enough, you have to stop this spending,' it won't stop, and our quality of life will degrade.”

Laura Brown and Malia Zimmerman of Hawaii Reporter co-authored this report

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at May 30, 2012 7:14 PM


Here's the problem with pension math: it's compounding, and it's based on an assumption that isn't 0%. So it may look like you're getting decent returns, but the context is (deliberately) skewed.

For some sense of what that means, consider each return that you cite by its distance from the assumed 7.7%; you get:

2003 = -4.7
2004 = -23.5
2005 = 3.6
2006 = 3.4
2007 = 10
2008 = -11.1
2009 = -26.4
2010 = 4
2011 = 13

That's an arithmetic average return of 3.5 percentage points *less* than what you need. Assuming I'm doing the math correctly, what you end up on a compounded basis is a return of 3.3% --- less than half the expected. That's not much better than inflation over that period (if at all). (Note: the assumed returns/discount rates tend to include inflation in the percentage.)

For some sense of what this means, imagine that you begin with $100. Under the assumed return rate of 7.7%, you ought to have $187.45 at the end of 2011. What you actually have, by the numbers that you provide, is $133.65. So, if you were fully funded at the beginning, you're now only 71.68% funded.

Posted by: Justin Katz at May 30, 2012 7:48 PM

Rereading, I see that 7.7% was the average return of some other plans. Regardless, it's close enough that the numbers wouldn't be too different based on 7.5%. You'd be 72.75% funded.

Posted by: Justin Katz at May 30, 2012 7:56 PM

I agree that 7.5% is unrealistic, but who is this person? She's trying to sound like an expert and she really doesn't understand the system.

Posted by: Bob at May 30, 2012 9:04 PM

I see the amounts listed in the funds in each year, but how much of the additional funds are from contributions and not necessarily "returns"?
And remember this, numbers and percentages can be misleading. If you have $100 and you lose 50% you now have $50. To get back to even, you need a 100% return.

Posted by: Mike Cappelli at May 30, 2012 9:11 PM


Actually, Norcross is an expert by any fair definition. What's screwy is the way accountants think of pensions. In theory, the discount rate and the projected return are different things. The point is that risk has to be factored in, and with a pension fund, there's essentially no risk to the beneficiary, so a zero-risk rate would be appropriate for budgeting purposes.



Ken's numbers, I think, are the actual gains and losses from investments. I think I strayed a bit in my explanation, above (essentially assuming 0 contributions when talking about funding levels), and my oversimplifying may have been misleading of the actual state of such a plan. (Obviously, one would have to know, as well, what the starting amount of the fund was and what the contributions and payouts were.)

Posted by: Justin Katz at May 30, 2012 9:34 PM

Tommy Cranston excellent reporting and also to everyone else who commented!!!!! But you didn’t “fully” address why there is a Hawaii ERS unfunded liability which was caused by the state GA (D) not paying into the fund the full state % share (just like RI) which the, I believe and remember correctly, it was the Honolulu police union, that went to court to force the issue all the way up to the Hawaii Supreme Court and won all court battle over many years forcing the State of Hawaii under court order to start paying in the underfunded liability difference that was being diverted for pet projects. Gov. Linda Lingle (R) with GA (D) in a cover a my A_s move did pass another law that says the ERS fund can no longer be raided to balance the state budget (during the last 2007-2008 recession) but she and GA (D) were forced by the Hawaii Supreme Court by court order after all the state appeals up the court ladder to the highest state court. It was not her good will gesture!

I started coming to HI in 1968 with the military and in 1970s started vacationing regularly almost every year till I retired and moved my wife and I here in 2006. All that time we’ve been keeping our finger on the pulse of what was happening in HI including my father per a Presidential mission to China and my wife via the invitation of the U.S. Congressional supported East West Center in Honolulu (I already had been in both places). Things in HI are completely different than back in RI as RI has 39 cities and towns and 37 school districts for the smallest state in the union and HI over 1,500 miles long is comprised of 120 islands and atolls has only 4 municipal counties (local governments with elected mayors) and 1 school district run which is run by state government for the 43rd largest state in the nation. More is done with less government in HI and the culture is 180 degrees different than RI. That is why my full retirement income is exempted from HI state income tax, no vehicle or boat property tax, county minimum property tax (highest in state) is $300/yr., sales tax is 4.5%, no heating or A/C bills with only required summer wardrobe 365 days a year and HI instituted healthcare reform over 40 years ago thus the state has the lowest healthcare costs in the nation. Plus as Tommy Cranston so eloquently put it, people live longer in HI but also we are ranked the happiest state in the nation with the least stress and 2nd cleanest international city in the world.

Former Gov. Linda Lingle (R) was also the former mayor of Maui County (ranked “Best Island in the World” 17 yrs. out of 24 yrs. by Condé Nast Traveler reader international poll) and to listen to her current campaign ads for state senator one must stop and ask themselves is this the same Linda Lingle that was governor of HI that stripped the 180 day year school system (jeopardizing federal funds and certifications) and state government offices down each week closing for one day (making negative national and international headlines) until private state companies said enough is enough and offered interest free loans to the state to get the children back into schools learning????

If you’ve never been here (HI the 50th U.S.A. state in the nation) you will not know how refreshing it is, compared to RI, living with an almost totally transparent government which almost to the extent that we the people know what color underwear each politician (R) or (D) are wearing each day!! I cannot fathom with all the checks, balances and ethics rules in place that the HIERS, ERS contracted actuaries, state government, TV stations, radio and the newspaper would write a false report especially when there is a Hawaii Supreme Court order in place. You can always request a performance copy of the annual ERS report from HIERS or the HI newspapers from back years.

I am well aware of the Hawaii Reporter and they are trying to apply mainland practices to HI culture, politics and the open way things are accomplished in HI. There is a lot of misleading information flying around from them. Some almost true but they tend to drop a critical descriptive word or not finish the whole story of what really happened to slant the story their way per their unknown agenda. You’ve got to really check their story information.

My comment to Mark was based on his statement saying “benchmark of 7.5% being fantasy-land” and subsequent backup information from what was printed in the local HI newspaper to show that yes indeed HIs’ ERS investments per the local newspaper; “The ERS performance beat the median 7.7 percent return of 26 public funds with assets of $1 billion or more. The ERS return also exceeded its policy benchmark —consisting of various index funds — of 7.5 percent.” That is only for 1 quarter of 3 quarters of the current year as we are now in the 4th quarter (which can go +/-) but there are also 25 other public funds that cause an aggregate median of 7.7% which means there are ½ of the 50 U.S.A. states living in “fantasy-land” according to Mark’s statement. Mark, Justin and Tommy Cranston all three of you should be teaching PhD level economics courses at prestigious national universities and advising states and international nations per your comments to me. All I was saying or in simpler terms, you just can’t lump everyone into a one size fits all because there are exceptions to the rule that will come back to bite you.

If you read the whole newspaper article or look closely at what I copied and pasted it is basically saying that HI made 8.3% interest on investments in one single quarter which is over the benchmark of assumed 7.5% annual interest rate benchmark. If you do the math you’ll find over the 3 quarters the actual is (-11.2%)+(+5.5%)+(+8.3%) totals +2.6% gain until the final 4th quarter 2012 results are tabulated which as usual a newspaper article will be written to inform the public of how we did for the year.

Justin the way I read the newspaper report the numbers are % total FY gains/loss for all 4 Quarters per year.

PS: Guys HI tourist numbers especially from mainland U.S.A. East & West Coast are breaking the bank as tourist spending is projected (based on current month to month income reports) to top over $14 Billion 2012 in HI making it an extraordinary banner year surpassing top year 2007 numbers, the NFL Pro Bowl will be played in Honolulu 27 Jan. 2013, Honolulu unemployment (where 80% of state population lives and works) is now down to 5.3% and airlines are now adding daily non-stop direct flights from East Coast to HI. Visitors and tourists are spending money like there is no tomorrow!!!

Keep treading water to keep your heads above water RI as 38 Studio and Deepwater Wind political backroom deals bury the RI taxpayers, whole state with tax burdens and bonds (only a short time before you add full casino gambling, City & Town bankruptcy as the norm, maybe RI will be 1st state in nation, and higher taxes).

Posted by: KenW at May 31, 2012 2:24 AM

FY 2003 to FY 2011 the average return on HI ERS investments is 4.177777777% with one of the most damaging 2 year recessions. However as I first stated above, it appears HI ERS has recovered losses from recession max Sept. 2007 was $11.7 Billion and 2012 3rd Q is $11.5 Billion. The unfunded libility is still there but I think HI ERS investments have brought HI ERS back to level playing field baseline.

Posted by: KenW at May 31, 2012 2:55 AM

Being even with where you were five years ago is actually being very far behind, because the plan relies on compounding growth every year. Roughly speaking, over five years, at 7.5% compounding growth, the fund should have grown by 50%. That missing money blows a huge gap in the whole thing going forward, because it is not in the account earning returns at this moment.

Posted by: Justin Katz at May 31, 2012 6:54 AM

On Thursday May 31, 2012 at the City of Warwick fiscal year 2013 budget hearing when the issue of pensions was discussed before a packed City Council chambers containing police, firefighters and public works employees I testified on the specific problems facing the city.

As a former Warwick City Councilman I have been warning city leaders of these problems for years.

At one point the administration officials, which included the mayor, his chief of staff, finance director and personnel director, announced that the pension funds had achieved a rate of return over 8% for the previous quarter and assets had appreciated by $25 million. The crowd errupterd into a standing ovation.

This exemplifies the problems we have in RI.

I wonder what the rate of return is after the market tanked in May?

Here is the link to the audio

Start at position 2577 of the May 31, part III audio.

It takes about 25 minutes. The audio before and after is also worth listening

Posted by: Bob Cushman at June 5, 2012 4:45 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.