SPIA's it appears will become an increasingly talked about option for retirement planning and I included it as an option in my personal "investor policy statement and plan" that I finished this weekend. From all I have gathered there are a couple of important points: 1. find a good rated company with the lowest costs, 2. waiting until later in retirement will decrease the likelihood that the insurance company will default just by the odds conferred by fewer years, 3. waiting until later in retirement should allow you to get a smaller SPIA and therefore probably fly under the maximum of state guarantee. I personally may investigate SPIA's for me and spouse with two different companies and purchasing at or under state guarantee limit AND only after I see what happens to social security. Regarding the last point, here comes the paranoia: if you have an SPIA, you now have a fixed income stream that cannot be hidden, reduced, etc. as an asset in any way, or given away to others. There is a very real concern by some, that our Uncle is going to reduce benefits for those who saved, because the ones who didn't save get an equal vote. Just my two cents.
What happens if lifetime annuity issuer goes bankrupt?
- Thread starter mark
- Start date
clifp
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
- Messages
- 7,733
I have been interested in this topic for some time and done a bit of research. Although I am sure that Brewer has forgotten more than I know on the subject. I also should note I never worked for an insurance company so there is lots I don’t understand about the business.
First it is rare that that people loss money on annuities. Executive Life is by far the largest failure in the last 30 years. While the bankruptcy of insurance companies isn’t uncommon, generally state regulators
find other insurance companies to take the over or transfer policies. . In addition to Exec Life, in doing research I found a handful of other insurance companies bankruptcies which resulted in loses to policy but couldn’t find details. In the case of Exec Life, it was one of the largest insurance companies in CA. It failed in 1991, and lawsuit continue for more than decade. From what I can tell policy holders got between $.40 to $.70 on the dollar, with those over the State Guaranty Fund getting less. What I am unsure from Googling the subject in the past is when did people get paid, getting your money 10 years after the company went may not be very valuable.
As Brewer said policy holders have first claim on companies assets, and much like banks, they have regulators and policy and procedures to make sure they don’t take excessive risks. Still since we have catastrophic failures in the savings loan back in the 1990s and most recently with investment banks in 2008, and the near collapse of bank system and hundreds of individual banks failures since 2008, so some caution is order. After the AIG bailout, I think it is wise to at least question the overall safety of annuities and the life insurance business. Overall I’d be significantly more worried about the safety of an annuity than I would my money in a bank under the FDIC limit.
A few of the things that bother about the insurance business. First that it is regulated at the state level and the competence and professionalism of the regulators varies widely. In most case state insurance commissioner are either an elected official or a political appointee, it is relatively rare that the commissioner has any experience in the insurance business. Like the banking business, insurance business involves a lot of math and finance and in general I worry about the ability of a state to attract the best and the brightest to become insurance regulators. This is especially true for regulating a multinational like AIG, in theory money is suppose to stay in the entity that is licensed to sell insurance in your state. In practice as the Exec Life case proves money is fungible and can be relatively easily moved. Next industry profit margin are pretty small, most companies suffered large losses in 2008 and 2009 and there is a lot of competition.
I also question the value of insurance company rating. The good news is that insurance companies are rated by the major agencies and for the most part the agency ratings are within two notches of each other (a company rated AA by one agency is very likely to be rated between AAA- and A+ by the others). While an agency credit rating is certainly more valuable than assurances from the insurance agent that a company is “rock solid”, forecasting the financial strength of a company 30 years seems virtually impossible for anybody. After the recent scandal where Moody’s S&P, Fitch etc rated securities like CDO as AAA only to seem them turn in toxic waste less than two years later it is hard have a great deal faith in the rating agencies competence. As practical matter it is also very difficult to judge the value of a higher rated insurance company. Imagine a 65 year old couple who sole income is from social security $2K/month and 250K annuity, AAA company insurance says they’ll give them $1200/month AA $1250 and single A company $1300 for joint SPIA. I have no idea if the higher rated insurance company is worth giving up $100 month in income. As people get more comfortable buying stuff over the internet I expect to see less involvement by insurance agents, and more price competition between insurance companies and hence more pressure by lower rated companies to offer better rates.
State guaranty associations are ill equipped to handle failures of large insurance companies and I think a multiple failures would cripple the system. Unlike FDIC insurance where banks pay ~$.25 per $100 worth of deposits into a fund, state guaranty associations are purely reactive. Only after an insurance company starts to go bankrupt does the SGA assess its member for the cost of bailing out the bankrupt company. This works fine for a small insurance company, in the case of Executive Life not so well. Imagine a future financial crisis involving insurance companies, your firm already losing money gets hit with large assessment to pay for other failing firms. Rather than pay the assessment, you elect to stop doing business in the state and leave the SGA. (Sure there is a lawsuit involved) By pulling out you increase the assessment on other insurance companies doing business in the state, potentially leading to a chain reaction of companies leaving the state (much like happened in Florida after a bad hurricane season). Unlike the FDIC insurance fund which is backstopped by Uncle Sam, SGA are not backstopped by states.. Finally as practical matter annuity coverage is pretty low $100K typically with a few states providing $300K this just doesn’t buy you a lot of income. A few years ago I spent 3 weeks trying to contact Hawaii’s guaranty association, I sent 6 emails and made more than a dozen phones calls before giving up and getting my questions answered by a lawyer in Hawaii insurance commissioners office. Given this level of responsiveness for simple questions, I sure would hate to try and get money from them.
In conclusion, in theory I really like the idea of using annuities to provide a base income for somebody in retirement. In practice, I think it is a lot more difficult to do it. It seems me that it most prudent to treat an annuity as bond with the insurance company. Now to be fair, to the inherent protections of insurance contracts make a annuity safer than the equivalent 30 year corporate bond. So from a safety prospective maybe treat an annuity as the equivalent of a muni bond of a similar investment grade?? In today’s interest rates if you limit yourself to $100k per company for a 55 year old couple that is a bit above $4300 income per contract and at ~5K at 65. In some states it maybe hard to find 1/2 dozen insurance companies you want to do business with.
Finally and perhaps most important annuitizing enough to get a decent base income (say 30 to 50K) results in you having a very significant exposure to a single sector; the insurance business. As people heavily invested in tech in the late 90s or those of us in the financial or home builders sector in 2008 found out the hard way, over concentration in a sector is very dangerous. When a sector gets hit, bad companies go out of business, but good companies also get devastated. Often the damage just extends to stockholders, but sometimes bond holders (and I include annuity contracts in this group) also can get hurt. One things that bothers me most about the insurance business is the very high correlation with a retiree’s investment and worries. Worried about an extended period of low bond and equities returns? bad for you and just as bad for insurance companies. What if medical breakthrough find a cure for cancer, heart disease and obesity? It increase your likelihood for outliving your money, but also is horrible news for insurance companies. Worried about cost of nursing homes continuing to rise rapidly? guess what the same insurance company that sold you an annuity probably sold lots of long term care contracts also. In short virtually any financial concern (except for SS payments being cut/taxed) you have in retirement is equally bad news for insurance companies. When people advocate using annuities to minimize investments risk, I fear they are trading one set of risk for another. There will be a future crisis in the insurance business, just like there has been in agriculture, autos, airlines, banks, oil, real estate, technology, textiles..... If we will see it in my lifetime I have no clue
First it is rare that that people loss money on annuities. Executive Life is by far the largest failure in the last 30 years. While the bankruptcy of insurance companies isn’t uncommon, generally state regulators
find other insurance companies to take the over or transfer policies. . In addition to Exec Life, in doing research I found a handful of other insurance companies bankruptcies which resulted in loses to policy but couldn’t find details. In the case of Exec Life, it was one of the largest insurance companies in CA. It failed in 1991, and lawsuit continue for more than decade. From what I can tell policy holders got between $.40 to $.70 on the dollar, with those over the State Guaranty Fund getting less. What I am unsure from Googling the subject in the past is when did people get paid, getting your money 10 years after the company went may not be very valuable.
As Brewer said policy holders have first claim on companies assets, and much like banks, they have regulators and policy and procedures to make sure they don’t take excessive risks. Still since we have catastrophic failures in the savings loan back in the 1990s and most recently with investment banks in 2008, and the near collapse of bank system and hundreds of individual banks failures since 2008, so some caution is order. After the AIG bailout, I think it is wise to at least question the overall safety of annuities and the life insurance business. Overall I’d be significantly more worried about the safety of an annuity than I would my money in a bank under the FDIC limit.
A few of the things that bother about the insurance business. First that it is regulated at the state level and the competence and professionalism of the regulators varies widely. In most case state insurance commissioner are either an elected official or a political appointee, it is relatively rare that the commissioner has any experience in the insurance business. Like the banking business, insurance business involves a lot of math and finance and in general I worry about the ability of a state to attract the best and the brightest to become insurance regulators. This is especially true for regulating a multinational like AIG, in theory money is suppose to stay in the entity that is licensed to sell insurance in your state. In practice as the Exec Life case proves money is fungible and can be relatively easily moved. Next industry profit margin are pretty small, most companies suffered large losses in 2008 and 2009 and there is a lot of competition.
I also question the value of insurance company rating. The good news is that insurance companies are rated by the major agencies and for the most part the agency ratings are within two notches of each other (a company rated AA by one agency is very likely to be rated between AAA- and A+ by the others). While an agency credit rating is certainly more valuable than assurances from the insurance agent that a company is “rock solid”, forecasting the financial strength of a company 30 years seems virtually impossible for anybody. After the recent scandal where Moody’s S&P, Fitch etc rated securities like CDO as AAA only to seem them turn in toxic waste less than two years later it is hard have a great deal faith in the rating agencies competence. As practical matter it is also very difficult to judge the value of a higher rated insurance company. Imagine a 65 year old couple who sole income is from social security $2K/month and 250K annuity, AAA company insurance says they’ll give them $1200/month AA $1250 and single A company $1300 for joint SPIA. I have no idea if the higher rated insurance company is worth giving up $100 month in income. As people get more comfortable buying stuff over the internet I expect to see less involvement by insurance agents, and more price competition between insurance companies and hence more pressure by lower rated companies to offer better rates.
State guaranty associations are ill equipped to handle failures of large insurance companies and I think a multiple failures would cripple the system. Unlike FDIC insurance where banks pay ~$.25 per $100 worth of deposits into a fund, state guaranty associations are purely reactive. Only after an insurance company starts to go bankrupt does the SGA assess its member for the cost of bailing out the bankrupt company. This works fine for a small insurance company, in the case of Executive Life not so well. Imagine a future financial crisis involving insurance companies, your firm already losing money gets hit with large assessment to pay for other failing firms. Rather than pay the assessment, you elect to stop doing business in the state and leave the SGA. (Sure there is a lawsuit involved) By pulling out you increase the assessment on other insurance companies doing business in the state, potentially leading to a chain reaction of companies leaving the state (much like happened in Florida after a bad hurricane season). Unlike the FDIC insurance fund which is backstopped by Uncle Sam, SGA are not backstopped by states.. Finally as practical matter annuity coverage is pretty low $100K typically with a few states providing $300K this just doesn’t buy you a lot of income. A few years ago I spent 3 weeks trying to contact Hawaii’s guaranty association, I sent 6 emails and made more than a dozen phones calls before giving up and getting my questions answered by a lawyer in Hawaii insurance commissioners office. Given this level of responsiveness for simple questions, I sure would hate to try and get money from them.
In conclusion, in theory I really like the idea of using annuities to provide a base income for somebody in retirement. In practice, I think it is a lot more difficult to do it. It seems me that it most prudent to treat an annuity as bond with the insurance company. Now to be fair, to the inherent protections of insurance contracts make a annuity safer than the equivalent 30 year corporate bond. So from a safety prospective maybe treat an annuity as the equivalent of a muni bond of a similar investment grade?? In today’s interest rates if you limit yourself to $100k per company for a 55 year old couple that is a bit above $4300 income per contract and at ~5K at 65. In some states it maybe hard to find 1/2 dozen insurance companies you want to do business with.
Finally and perhaps most important annuitizing enough to get a decent base income (say 30 to 50K) results in you having a very significant exposure to a single sector; the insurance business. As people heavily invested in tech in the late 90s or those of us in the financial or home builders sector in 2008 found out the hard way, over concentration in a sector is very dangerous. When a sector gets hit, bad companies go out of business, but good companies also get devastated. Often the damage just extends to stockholders, but sometimes bond holders (and I include annuity contracts in this group) also can get hurt. One things that bothers me most about the insurance business is the very high correlation with a retiree’s investment and worries. Worried about an extended period of low bond and equities returns? bad for you and just as bad for insurance companies. What if medical breakthrough find a cure for cancer, heart disease and obesity? It increase your likelihood for outliving your money, but also is horrible news for insurance companies. Worried about cost of nursing homes continuing to rise rapidly? guess what the same insurance company that sold you an annuity probably sold lots of long term care contracts also. In short virtually any financial concern (except for SS payments being cut/taxed) you have in retirement is equally bad news for insurance companies. When people advocate using annuities to minimize investments risk, I fear they are trading one set of risk for another. There will be a future crisis in the insurance business, just like there has been in agriculture, autos, airlines, banks, oil, real estate, technology, textiles..... If we will see it in my lifetime I have no clue
Last edited:
ReadySkiDaddy
Dryer sheet aficionado
Are you saying that people got no more than 70 cents on the dollar when the so called "white night" came in to buy up the company? And then the state guaranty fund paid for some of the remaining $.30 to $.60?
I sure hope investors didn't have to pay income taxes on those settlements!!!!
clifp
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
- Messages
- 7,733
My understanding is that most annuity holders took a 30% haircut on their payments after 1991 So your $1,000 payment became $700. Plus for many months they received nothing while the insurance commissioner, state guaranty fund, and Credit Lyons pointed fingers at each other.
The good news is after all the lawsuits were settled a decade latter, I believe people got additional payments. The bad news is I think people with annuities over $100K may have gotten less than $.70 on the dollar.
It was an very complicated situation and I had difficulty putting together the final result of a dozen years of lawsuits.
ReadySkiDaddy
Dryer sheet aficionado
If I got 40 cents on the dollar I'd be pissed!
If the government didn't bail out AIG, I wonder if I'd be getting pennies on the dollar for my Sun America annuity. That may have been a close shave! I am slowly pulling out portions of my Sun America annuity.
If the government didn't bail out AIG, I wonder if I'd be getting pennies on the dollar for my Sun America annuity. That may have been a close shave! I am slowly pulling out portions of my Sun America annuity.
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
RealSkiDaddy, if the government didn't bail out AIG your SunAmerica annuity should have been fine. The major risk would have been that AIG would try to draw capital out of SunAmerica to address its corporate obligations for the CDS the AIG holding company wrote, but there are numerous regulatory restrictions on such draws.
The link clifp attached was early in the workout of Executive Life and also related to guaranteed investment contracts (GICs) issued by Executive Life. I don't think one can necessarily conclude that a payout annuitant got a 30% haircut. While I don't know for sure, I suspect that GICs are not pari passu with payout annuities and payout annuities would come before GICs (and GICs would be only a step ahead of Executive Life bonds).
The link clifp attached was early in the workout of Executive Life and also related to guaranteed investment contracts (GICs) issued by Executive Life. I don't think one can necessarily conclude that a payout annuitant got a 30% haircut. While I don't know for sure, I suspect that GICs are not pari passu with payout annuities and payout annuities would come before GICs (and GICs would be only a step ahead of Executive Life bonds).
rescueme
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I assume this is not an SPIA (the product of the discussion at hand)?
rescueme
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Well, not in the traditional sense.
I don't know what you mean as "hidden", unless you are trying to dodge the tax man (or woman
).Reduced? Sorry, don't understand.
As far as "given away"? Well, in our case (holding a life joint/survivor SPIA), payments continue to me/DW as long as one of us are alive to collect. If not? The remaining payments go to our estate, for the benefit of others. BTW, our expected joint life span was calculated at contract time, and we do know the minimum payments we are expected to receive, based upon our calculated lifespan. This makes it very easy to calculate the true return (e.g. IRR) with the possibility to "beat" that return if one/both of us live beyond the expected lifespan defined in the contract.
There is no standard form of an SPIA (and I/DW have one, as a disclaimer of what I'm about to commment on). There are a lot of "options", each being a rider (much like your car insurance) that for a price (in an SPIA's case, a slight reduction in monthly payment) that will cover those situations that you fear most, be it fear of inflation, fear of passing the day after you sign the SPIA contract, fear of ____ (fill in the blank).
An SPIA is an asset, that reduces in value over time. Again, as an income/distribution vehicle, that is to be expected. If folks would get away from the idea that it is an "investment", a lot of the concerns would be eliminated. It's just one way of reducing risk to your remaining retirement investment portfolio, while privately ensuring an income stream for the period of time you wish - be it 10 years or the rest of your (and if desired, your spouse) lifetimes, with the option (again, for a price) to leave a bequest to your estate if either/both pass earlier than expected.
It's not rocket science, folks...
Last edited:
Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
A worthwhile distinction that is often overlooked, could cause confusion among some members. Many of us use the general term "annuity" when we actually mean a SPIA or the like (I've been guilty of same). It's probably rare here when a member means variable annuity without actually specifying just that.
Last edited:
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
And to add to what Midpack said, when we refer to SPIA's in many cases we are really referring to payout annuities.
One version of payout annuity is a SPIA where the policyholder pays a single premium of x in exchange for y of future benefit payments.
The other common version is where an existing deferred annuity (of which there are many kinds) has an annuitization option that is executed by the policyholder and the effect is an exchange of the deferred annuity for the future benefit payments.
At the end of the day the result is a promise by the insurer to may certain payments to the annuitant, either for life or a period certain or a combination thereof.
One version of payout annuity is a SPIA where the policyholder pays a single premium of x in exchange for y of future benefit payments.
The other common version is where an existing deferred annuity (of which there are many kinds) has an annuitization option that is executed by the policyholder and the effect is an exchange of the deferred annuity for the future benefit payments.
At the end of the day the result is a promise by the insurer to may certain payments to the annuitant, either for life or a period certain or a combination thereof.
I don't know what you mean as "hidden", unless you are trying to dodge the tax man (or woman
Reduced? Sorry, don't understand.
I think BigE meant "hidden" as in being able to not take any payments in a given year and thus not appearing on the tax return. Like a capital gain is optional if you don't need the income. The $100k you put into the annuity is "hidden" because it is an asset that the IRS does not usually track or tax yearly. Once you buy the annuity, the IRS "sees" that income stream every year and taxes it, whether you needed it or not.
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Like interest on bonds or dividends on stocks...same "disadvantage".
clifp
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
- Messages
- 7,733
I am not at all sure of this. According to books like To Big to Fail, and the Big Short some of the biggest purchasers of both vanilla MBS and the more exotic CDO and even CDO square were insurance companies. Michael Lewis characterized insurance portfolio managers as dumb money, more sophisticated the hapless towns in Europe that bought these toxic waste product, but no where nears as smart as many of the Hedge Fund managers or Goldman Sachs.
By early 2008 many insurance companies portfolios were filled with "safe" fixed income security with AAA ratings. By now many of the lower tranches of the CDO weren't paying income, and there also wasn't much of a market for these security. My guess is that even the often clueless state insurance regulators were probably getting nervous and pushing insurance companies to minimize their exposure to CDOs etc. One easy way for an insurance company to do this would be buy portfolio insurance (i.e. a credit default swap) to protect against the the mortgage market tanking.
By far the biggest supplier of this insurance was AIG: Financial Products. We know that Goldman Sach was big beneficiary of the government decision to bail out AIG. However AFAIK GS accounted for only a small percentage of the CDS AIG: Financial Products wrote. If AIG didn't get a bailed out lots of companies would be have been left holding hundreds of billions CDS issued by AIG but pretty much worthless. I am pretty sure that lots of Life Insurance companies were a huge benefactor of the decision to bail out AIG. I am not all confident that life insurance companies could have survived the double whammy of huge declines in their mortgage back security and the portfolio insurance they bought turning out to be worthless.
Now this is speculation on my part, but I don't think it is baseless.
And I've been trying to keep those dividends hidden in the 401k/IRA accounts to avoid the problem of hitting the Roth IRA income limit since DW still works. No bonds in my AA, just a place to park my cash temporarily if I feel like it. And of course, no plans for an annuity other than as Midpack's Plan B.
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Interesting speculation, but totally wrong - but please don't let facts get in the way of your view of the world.
A.I.G. Payments to Counterparties
clifp
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
- Messages
- 7,733
Interesting I hadn't seen a list of the AIG counterparty payments before, I see insurance companies aren't on the list.
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Just took a couple minutes of googling to find.
There's a little green man in my head
Yes, that is what I was getting at. Probably not worded in the best way. In addition, IMHO what we are seeing in Wisconsin may very well filter down to the unsustainable program we know as social security. That is, reduced SS benefits. A reduction in benefits across the board is less likely than giving a haircut to those who saved outside of SS. If you had any advance knowledge that this was coming down the pike, would you give away assets to charity, gift the annual maximum to kids, etc? Just food for thought.
Yes, that is what I was getting at. Probably not worded in the best way. In addition, IMHO what we are seeing in Wisconsin may very well filter down to the unsustainable program we know as social security. That is, reduced SS benefits. A reduction in benefits across the board is less likely than giving a haircut to those who saved outside of SS. If you had any advance knowledge that this was coming down the pike, would you give away assets to charity, gift the annual maximum to kids, etc? Just food for thought.
rescueme
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I'll just refer to Animorph who said you were getting (taxable) income, regardless if you needed it or not.
In that case, I would say that an (SPIA) annuity to give you retirement income is not at all in your best interest.
If you wish to "manage" your income in retirement, there are other ways.
Like I said many times before, you have to show a need for an (SPIA) annuity. It's not for everybody. Nothing wrong with that at all, IMHO.
It's just a tool that should be considered and available for retirement income, but don't use it as a hammer when a screwdriver is what you need
...
Last edited:
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Yes, only a portion of annuity payments are taxable.
"The money you invested in the immediate annuity is returned in equal tax-free installments over the payment period. If you have a life annuity with payouts that will stop when you die, for example, then that payment period is the IRS's life-expectancy number for someone your age. You'll owe taxes only on any portion of each payout beyond the tax-free return of principal.
Say, for example, you invest $100,000 in an immediate annuity and the annual payouts are $8,000. If the IRS considers your life expectancy to be 20 years, divide $100,000 by 20 to determine how much of each payout will be a tax-free return of investment. In this case, $5,000 of each $8,000 payout would be tax-free and $3,000 would be taxed at ordinary income-tax rates."
"The money you invested in the immediate annuity is returned in equal tax-free installments over the payment period. If you have a life annuity with payouts that will stop when you die, for example, then that payment period is the IRS's life-expectancy number for someone your age. You'll owe taxes only on any portion of each payout beyond the tax-free return of principal.
Say, for example, you invest $100,000 in an immediate annuity and the annual payouts are $8,000. If the IRS considers your life expectancy to be 20 years, divide $100,000 by 20 to determine how much of each payout will be a tax-free return of investment. In this case, $5,000 of each $8,000 payout would be tax-free and $3,000 would be taxed at ordinary income-tax rates."
rescueme
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
It depends on the funding. Ours was purchased with funds from our TIRA/401(k).
All distributions in this case are taxable.
Of course, the remaining funds (if we die early) are going to our named non-profit charities. In that case (assuming the law does not change) will be tax-free, for their use.
zinger1457
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,229
Your example only applies if the funds that you used to purchase the annuity came from a non-qualified source. But as Rescueme stated if the funds came from a qualified plan (IRA/401K) then all distributions are fully taxable.
rescueme
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Berkshire does not allow tax-deferred funds (e.g. qualified) to be used to purchase an SPIA. It can only be done with after tax contributions, per:
Frequently asked questions
Similar threads
