Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-01-2012, 10:54 AM   #121
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,403
I am glad that you feel the same way I do. That makes at least two of us.

I have more. Again, most people do not think that they are lucky, else they would go to Vegas and put it all on red. So, you would think that they want to buy annuities, being risk-averse? Nope. Buying annuities implies that they think that they will win, that they belong in that lucky group of people who will win double, life and money too. Talk about pushing your luck!

So, not wanting to offend Fortuna, the goddess of luck, I will not buy an annuity. If I die young, I die rich (my children will be rich too!). If I live a long life, I will be happy to be living poor although FIRECalc says there's a chance I may, just may, get also lucky there (I have been trying to live right, like not picking on other people's grammar and stuff, not even picking on the grammar pickers, etc...).

I am asking for only 1 out of 2, and not pushing my luck at all.
__________________

__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 08-01-2012, 11:42 AM   #122
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
MasterBlaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
I am glad that you feel the same way I do. That makes at least two of us.

I have more. Again, most people do not think that they are lucky, else they would go to Vegas and put it all on red. So, you would think that they want to buy annuities, being risk-averse? Nope. Buying annuities implies that they think that they will win, that they belong in that lucky group of people who will win double, life and money too. Talk about pushing your luck!

So, not wanting to offend Fortuna, the goddess of luck, I will not buy an annuity. If I die young, I die rich (my children will be rich too!). If I live a long life, I will be happy to be living poor although FIRECalc says there's a chance I may, just may, get also lucky there (I have been trying to live right, like not picking on other people's grammar and stuff, not even picking on the grammar pickers, etc...).

I am asking for only 1 out of 2, and not pushing my luck at all.
If you feel that you wil die young, then you need a method to optimize your nestegg utility. I claim that oft-quoted SWR methods are suboptimal in your situation. people like you could really benefit from such a (SPIA-enhanced) approach.
__________________

__________________
MasterBlaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 11:54 AM   #123
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
(snip)...Buying annuities implies that they think that they will win....
Not at all. Buying our SPIA just ensures us that we won't lose.

Remember, it is insurance to cover the possible need/shortfall (as is life insurance); it's not a wager on trying to beat any longivity odds. There's a big difference from your opinion of what you think the product is used for.

Hey, if you don't like the idea or think you can cover your retirement income on your own with your own investments, or you're a person who has enough income from SS, pensions, and other sources, then you don't need to consider such a product.

We purchased our first policy in order to delay our respective SS claims, and to keep the majority of our joint retirement portfolio allocated to equities quite high (in relation to other retirees) for future needs 20-30+ years down the road. That "risk" required us to also take out some "insurance" to make sure our early retirement income needs were met, not only counting on our joint portfolio and investment expertise, and also addressing the 11-year gap from retirement until all our income sources come on-line.

We had the need, so we purchased the product. Five+ years since purchase, it has been shown to be one of our better decisions in life, especially with the continuing low-interest period we are in.

But no, I'm not saying everybody (or anybody), should follow our lead. I'm just trying to show a situation where the product is actually used, not just part of a study or personal opinion by folks without any "skin" in the game. What you do is up to you.
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 02:45 PM   #124
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,403
We just came back from a grocery run.

I was just joking, as I usually am.

I am not saying one should buy annuity or not. It has some advantages, and I may use one to augment my SS, which I still have yet to figure out what to do about as I still have a few years to go till 62.

The main reason for me not to get an annuity, and I am talking about just myself here, is that I love my money and do not want to lose control over it. When I said that I might be related to Scrooge, I was only half-joking. I am trying to live on 3.5%WR, which is about what I am spending now. If I die young, I would be too sad to worry about leaving money behind. And if I live long and get rich (not spending enough), or long but poor (spending too much), it is all OK. In my own analysis, money does not matter that much then, except that I just like to have it.

Peace. No more joke from me. Not on this thread anyway.

PS. I forgot the 4th case. That is to die young and broke. That would truly suck, but I would still feel more sadness because of the young rather than the poor part. However, at 3.5%WR, it should last me a while, right? Of course if the sky falls, all bets are off. However, we would be all on the same boat, so I would not feel left out. It's still OK then.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 07:15 PM   #125
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
The best argument against anuities is that reasonably priced inflation adjusted annuities are not available, and without this, inflation will kill the value of annuities.

I know this is not mainstream thinking, but bookmark this post and check back in 15 years.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 08:01 PM   #126
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
MasterBlaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
The best argument against anuities is that reasonably priced inflation adjusted annuities are not available, and without this, inflation will kill the value of annuities.

I know this is not mainstream thinking, but bookmark this post and check back in 15 years.

Ha
perhaps bonds fit in that category as well. And stocks are just too risky.

I'm going to go hide under the covers for now.
__________________
MasterBlaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 09:11 PM   #127
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
The best argument against anuities is that reasonably priced inflation adjusted annuities are not available, and without this, inflation will kill the value of annuities.

I know this is not mainstream thinking, but bookmark this post and check back in 15 years.

Ha
I agree Ha. While inflation seems tame these days, it'll be back. A significant portion of our current income is from non-cola'd sources. Moving a chunk of our portfolio into a non-cola'd annuity seems to defy the concept of diversification. Faced with a period of significant inflation, I'd be dealing with rising expenses funded by a non-cola'd pension and a non-cola's annuity with only a small inflation-fighting portfolio left after funding the annuity.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 02:44 AM   #128
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
obgyn65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
As someone who bought his first deferred annuity this year (already mentioned above), I have been enjoying reading this thread. Thank you to everyone for their advice and sharing their views.
__________________
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
obgyn65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 02:54 AM   #129
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
obgyn65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
Thank you, rescueme, for sharing this. I feel the same way as you do. Now that I have bought my first deferred annuity this year, I have been performing different simulations with my Excel file and noticed that small laddered SPIAs at later stages in life (say at age 65, 75, 85 and 90) instead of a larger SPIA bought at age 62 increase my net annual withdrawal by another $5k a year. Have you noticed something similar in your own calculations or am I missing something ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rescueme View Post
But no, I'm not saying everybody (or anybody), should follow our lead. I'm just trying to show a situation where the product is actually used, not just part of a study or personal opinion by folks without any "skin" in the game. What you do is up to you.
__________________
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
obgyn65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 07:36 AM   #130
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by obgyn65 View Post
...am I missing something ?
No. Assuming your spreadsheet calculations are correct and using a current interest rate along with a reduced payout period (since you will have less total payments as you age, for a life SPIA) your observation should stand. Your annual net withdrawal will increase quite naturally, without much aid from current interest rates at that time.

One of the areas a lot of folks get hung up on is thinking that waiting until a later age you will be better off since the payments will be higher. As you observed, this is true but not necessarily for the reasons why a later age buy in is better.

Monthly payments will be higher, but there is a slight impact of both interest/return rates taking it at a later age. Much of that "higher payment" at a later age is a return of "your money" over a shorter period of time rather than a long term policy (as DW/I have). Interest rates (better or worse) have less of an impact since it will be a shorter term to consider.

In our case, using the minimum term (28 years) at our IRR rate, we will "get back" our total premium, along with a matching sum - or 100% ROR from a simplistic view (disregarding inflation). If we assume the same interest rate at the time of a policy in the future (since we don't know what the future will bring, as far as interest rates), your "earnings" would be less, but your payments will be higher. BTW, a lot of folks will look at our return as less as acceptable and that is natural since most folks look at it the same way an investment would be. However, an SPIA is not an investment, but an income vehicle with your "principal" (e.g. premium) being reduced every month to provide you income. Unlike a standard return product (such as a CD or even bond), the amount of your "investment" available for "interest calculation/return" is reduced the longer it is in force.

As for your idea of buying SPIA's along the way (after you are retired) is the same thinking as us. Why our initial SPIA was purchased primarily as "income gap insurance" for early retirement (to cover the 11 year period from retirement until all our retirement income sources come on-line), and acts the same as a private company pension (e.g. not COLA'ed), we can see as we age putting more of our joint retirement portfolio on "automatic" by use of an SPIA rather than count on the portfolio/market to meet a portion of our retirement income needs. However, it will have to be an "established need" before we perform such additional purchases.

Consider the purchase an SPIA/SPDA if it fits your needs at the period of time of your life, be it a pre-retirement "product" as you have done, or later as the need arises. Again, it is just another tool for income and should only be considered if it fits your situation. It's not a "magic bullet" for everybody/every situation.
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 08:46 AM   #131
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
The best argument against anuities is that reasonably priced inflation adjusted annuities are not available, and without this, inflation will kill the value of annuities.

I know this is not mainstream thinking, but bookmark this post and check back in 15 years.

Ha
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
I agree Ha. While inflation seems tame these days, it'll be back. A significant portion of our current income is from non-cola'd sources. Moving a chunk of our portfolio into a non-cola'd annuity seems to defy the concept of diversification. Faced with a period of significant inflation, I'd be dealing with rising expenses funded by a non-cola'd pension and a non-cola's annuity with only a small inflation-fighting portfolio left after funding the annuity.
Certainly this is (or should be) an important consideration for anyone looking to buy an annuity. But could we look at it a bit differently?

When I compare COLA'd versus non-COLA'd pensions in FIRECALC, I find that a a non-COLA'd is worth about 1/2 what a COLA'd pension is, over a 30 year retirement. This might not always be the case for every time period run, but in terms of providing protection against failures, it seems to hold. And the spread of results is tighter with a COLA'd pension.

So in general terms, if one wants to adjust the long-term 'value' of that non-COLA'd annuity or pension, consider it to be ~ 1/2 the value of a COLA'd version. So an initial 12% payment at 65 (or whatever), should probably be looked at as ~ 6%, and then you need to bank the rest to grow, and eventually pull as an inflation offset. And if you live longer, and your costs mirror inflation, you might run out of inflation buffer anyhow.

But that needs to be measured against a conservative 3~3.5% WR from a portfolio. Hey, if the numbers work, putting 1/3 or 1/2 of your portfolio towards an annuity might be attractive. Is the insurers default risk (after their insurance pays up) really any greater than portfolio depletion at 3% WR?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 10:51 AM   #132
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
brewer12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by obgyn65 View Post
Thank you, rescueme, for sharing this. I feel the same way as you do. Now that I have bought my first deferred annuity this year, I have been performing different simulations with my Excel file and noticed that small laddered SPIAs at later stages in life (say at age 65, 75, 85 and 90) instead of a larger SPIA bought at age 62 increase my net annual withdrawal by another $5k a year. Have you noticed something similar in your own calculations or am I missing something ?
obgyn, it sounds like you have done some serious modelling. How do you take into account inflation over time? I like the idea of SPIAs, etc., but this is one of the things that kills the deal for me at ~40 YO.
__________________
"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."



- Will Rogers
brewer12345 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 11:11 AM   #133
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by obgyn65 View Post
Now that I have bought my first deferred annuity this year, I have been performing different simulations with my Excel file and noticed that small laddered SPIAs at later stages in life (say at age 65, 75, 85 and 90) instead of a larger SPIA bought at age 62 increase my net annual withdrawal by another $5k a year.
And this as-you-go approach would make it easy to buy from different insurers and evaluate them according to the most recent info (reducing risk) and would provide a benefit in a rising interest rate environment (which is also likely to be an inflationary environment--thus allowing you to combat a main shortfall with annuities).
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 12:27 PM   #134
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewer12345 View Post
(snip) I like the idea of SPIAs, etc., but this is one of the things that kills the deal for me at ~40 YO.
Heck, at your age, any type of SPIA would not be in the cards for us. At that time, we were both employed, contributing a good deal to our respective 401(k)/IRA's, and running an AA of 90-95% equities in an effort to build our retirement "number". Our current income needs at that time were met by our respective j*bs.

SPIA's are used to manage the distribution of your assets, not build them, during the time you no longer have a j*b.

You're too young, grasshopper ...
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2012, 02:22 PM   #135
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewer12345 View Post
obgyn, it sounds like you have done some serious modelling. How do you take into account inflation over time?
Not the person who you asked the question, but I'll just tell you what we did to help us decide.

Using a site, such as http://www.immediateannuities.com/ and selecting an option for your situation (e.g. single/joint, life/term, etc.) for the state you reside, plug the result into the retirement income calculator of your choice (for us, it was FIDO's RIP tool).

Enter it as a pension, non-COLA. I'm assuming you can't get an inflation adjusted SPIA, so it will look like any private non-COLA'ed pension income.

Be sure to subtract the premium to be paid from your portfolio value, assuming it comes from there and the funds are coming from qualified funds (retirement plan funds that receive favorable tax treatment under Sections 401, 403, 408 or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code).

If you are funding it with non-qualified funds (e.g. after tax), you can use the BRK annuity calculator http://www.brkdirect.com/spia/ezquote.asp but this is somewhat unusual, IMHO.

By running the retirement income forecast with/without the SPIA income, along with the addition/reduction in total portfolio value will at least give you a ballpark result and may help you make the decision.

We were pleased with our results, but again we did the final calculation a few months before actual retirement (when all the factors related to portfolio value, current interest rates, and actual monthly payment) were known, even though we had been researching the subject 2-3 years before actual retirement.

It might be a bit easier than building a spreadsheet if you just want to get a quick result.
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 01:10 AM   #136
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
obgyn65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
Hello Brewer - well I have been learning a lot about modeling from this website over the last couple of years. To answer your question, as you know, it is difficult to take inflation into account over a 40+ year retirement period and quantify it with a high degree of confidence, as discussed here in many threads and at Bogleheads also. Right now I am using 1% inflation rate for four main reasons: 1) I plan to continue with part time work (maybe one or two days a week) which would mitigate a hyperinflation risk 2) I can adapt when I stop working completely and be more frugal if the cost of living increases dramatically 3) as I get (much) older, my expenses are likely to remain stable or even go down as discussed in other threads here. 4) I also believe that I won't make it to 95, so seeing a negative cash flow balance on my last spreasheet row when I enter a 3% inflation over 48 years does not bother me too much... What about you - what inflation rate do you use and how confident are you in your approach ?

ob
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewer12345 View Post
obgyn, it sounds like you have done some serious modelling. How do you take into account inflation over time? I like the idea of SPIAs, etc., but this is one of the things that kills the deal for me at ~40 YO.
__________________
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
obgyn65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 01:16 AM   #137
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
obgyn65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
Agreed. This is why I also plan to continue to buy deferred annuities once annually until age 62 (up to the limit of $250k-300k in all) with between 1/4 and 1/2 of my annual interests from investments. This simple approach should increase my annual withdrawal at age 62 by $30k. What is your approach, samclem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
And this as-you-go approach would make it easy to buy from different insurers and evaluate them according to the most recent info (reducing risk) and would provide a benefit in a rising interest rate environment (which is also likely to be an inflationary environment--thus allowing you to combat a main shortfall with annuities).
__________________
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
obgyn65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 01:30 AM   #138
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
obgyn65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
Exactly the way I see it also. Thanks for sharing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rescueme View Post
Why our initial SPIA was purchased primarily as "income gap insurance" for early retirement (to cover the 11 year period from retirement until all our retirement income sources come on-line), and acts the same as a private company pension (e.g. not COLA'ed), we can see as we age putting more of our joint retirement portfolio on "automatic" by use of an SPIA rather than count on the portfolio/market to meet a portion of our retirement income needs. (...) Again, it is just another tool for income and should only be considered if it fits your situation. It's not a "magic bullet" for everybody/every situation.
__________________
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
obgyn65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 09:10 AM   #139
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by obgyn65
Agreed. This is why I also plan to continue to buy deferred annuities once annually until age 62 (up to the limit of $250k-300k in all) with between 1/4 and 1/2 of my annual interests from investments. This simple approach should increase my annual withdrawal at age 62 by $30k. What is your approach, samclem?
Given that you are a long way from 62 IIRC, your individual annuity purchases must be quite small.

Of course we live in different countries, but I don't think that approach would work well for me for three reasons. First, by spending the interest now, I would lose the opportunity to reinvest it. Second, I would not benefit that much from additional deferred income in retirement because income is taxed at a higher rate than dividends or capital gains. My goal will be to keep taxable income as low as possible. This may mean starting ER by withdrawing from my RRSP early (within the lowest tax bracket) to minimize mandatory minimum withdrawals later. If I do buy annuities it will be with money from my RRSP, exchanging one form of taxable income for another. Finally, I think it would be more advantageous to buy annuities in a higher interest rate environment, and when I am older, both of which would increase the ROI.

Different strokes for different folks. I do agree with diversifying annuity purchases.
__________________
Meadbh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 09:40 AM   #140
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by obgyn65 View Post
... as you know, it is difficult to take inflation into account over a 40+ year retirement period and quantify it with a high degree of confidence, ....

Right now I am using 1% inflation rate for four main reasons: 1) I plan to continue with part time work (maybe one or two days a week) which would mitigate a hyperinflation risk 2) I can adapt when I stop working completely and be more frugal if the cost of living increases dramatically 3) as I get (much) older, my expenses are likely to remain stable or even go down as discussed in other threads here. 4) I also believe that I won't make it to 95, so seeing a negative cash flow balance on my last spreasheet row when I enter a 3% inflation over 48 years does not bother me too much...

ob
Quote:
... plan to continue to buy deferred annuities once annually until age 62
I question buying so many annuities in small amounts. Maybe I have this wrong, but I thought there was a fairly high fixed component to the costs. IOW, an annuity at 5x the benefit will cost somewhat less than 5x. Cheaper by the dozen?

Also, I think you are mixing apples/oranges with your inflation offset by part time work. True, that mitigates the effects of inflation on your total NW, but (depending on your spreadsheet construction), it might be making the annuity look better than it really is? The inflation still affects your real annuity return, work or no work. The work is offsetting spending (or adding to savings). The annuity calcs are separate from that. Maybe that's not clear.... what I'm trying to say is, if we average 3% inflation, your annuity payment would be degraded by that amount each year (divide by 1.03^years). Working does not change inflation form 3% to 1% (though it might have that same final result), it changes your income.

When I model things like this, inflation is one component, income is another. One does not affect the other, they each affect the overall result.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
annuities pfau


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:00 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.