New student loan debt clock

The college financial aid site, FinAid.org, has launched a counter that keeps track of aggregate student debt. This new "debt clock" has no particular useful function, except to cause users to say, "Wow, that much?" (and, of course, to drive traffic to FinAid and its sister site, Fastweb).

Clock creator Mark Kantrowitz, who runs FinAid.org, concedes that the number is an estimate (although one based on government statistics). "I think it's probably in the right ballpark, give or take," he told the New York Times.

Published figures showed $830 billion in private and federal loans outstanding as of June 2010. Kantrowitz is estimating that the amount is rising by about $2,854 a second (taking into account both new loans and repayments).

Rapidly growing school debt has many people asking, "Is a college education still worth the investment?"

Posted by Joseph at 1:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): College

Email this post

Be ye perfect

Scripture does urge us to "aim for perfection," but I don't think this is what the apostle Paul had in mind.

From Money Magazine (via CNN):

Chris Peplinski is pursuing his own brand of flawlessness: an 850 credit score.

The 37-year-old stay-at-home dad from Rogers, Ark., has already nabbed 813 on the FICO scale, the credit scoring system most lenders use in sizing up potential borrowers....

Nevertheless, Peplinski won't be satisfied until he hits the maximum: 850. Why? "Your credit score tells a lot about you," Peplinski explains. "A high score means you're responsible and in control of your life. You're trustworthy."

To reach his goal, Peplinski...tweaks his behavior to eke out every possible additional point. Two years ago, he took out a car loan even though he and his wife, Chrissy, had the cash to buy their wheels outright.... He did it because FICO favors those with a variety of credit types, such as mortgage, credit cards, and auto loans.

"I probably paid $100 in interest," he says. "But it was worth it because we raised our credit scores by 15 points."

Money rightly notes that Peplinksi (and others like him also quoted in the story) are "obsessed."

Of the score strivers MONEY interviewed, most check their score obsessively, at least every few months — at a cost of $50 or more a year. They also fixate on their credit reports, upon which the scores are based.

There is, of course, no need for any of this. Sure, it's a good idea to check your credit reports every so often for errors (once a year is plenty and doing so is free). And, as noted in SMI's August-issue article, Know the Score (subscribers' link), it's also good idea to also check your credit scores once in a while.

But there's no reason to be obsessed about any of this. If you simply live within your means and pay your bills on time, you'll be fine.

Peplinkski makes his case below:

Posted by Joseph at 9:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): Family Finances

Email this post

The Hindenburg Omen

I've seen a number of articles recently discussing the so-called "Hindenburg Omen." I ignored them until today because I don't think it's a relevant issue at all. But I've received some reader requests to discuss it, so I'm doing so now.

Mark Hulbert provides the following snapshot of this indicator:

The core idea behind the Hindenburg Omen is that it's bearish whenever there are a large number of both new 52-weeks highs and new 52-week lows on the NYSE.

If we trace the Omen's genealogy even further back, however, we find that it is a direct descendant of an indicator called the High Low Logic Index, which Norman Fosback, editor of Fosback's Fund Forecaster, devised in the 1970s.

In his classic textbook Stock Market Logic, Fosback explained why a large number of both new highs and new lows is bearish: "Under normal conditions, either a substantial number of stocks establish new annual highs or a large number set new lows — but not both.... [When both nevertheless occur], it indicates that the market is undergoing a period of extreme divergence.... Such divergence is not usually conducive to future rising stock prices."

The trouble is that for this Hindenburg Omen, even when properly computed (more on that in a moment) it has a pretty stinky predictive record. Here's Barry Ritholtz's withering response to a recent Wall Street Journal article on the subject:

Now, I'm open to all manner of data analysis. But when you tell me (toward the end of your story) that (emphasis mine): "The Omen was behind every market crash since 1987, but also has occurred many other times without an ensuing significant downturn. Market analysts said only about 25% of Omen appearances have led to stock-market declines that can be considered crashes," you have pretty much wasted my time. Wake me up when you find something with an actual correlation — last I checked, 25% isn't even in coin-flip territory.

Jumping back to Hulbert, he brings up the very valid point that this indicator may not have even triggered under its traditional definition. Originally the threshold for new highs/lows was 5%, then it got reduced to 2.5% (you can read his full article for the details, if you're interested). But there are so many issues that trade on the NY stock exchange now that aren't even operating companies (think closed-end mutual funds, preferred stocks, etc.), there's a real question about the data the current Hindenburg alarmists are citing:

According to Ned Davis Research, the institutional research firm, a Hindenburg Omen would not have been triggered if analysts were to focus just on common stocks. On Aug. 12, for example, the day that this Omen was supposedly triggered, just 0.4% of common stocks on the NYSE hit new 52-week highs, according to the firm.

To summarize, there are plenty of things to be legitimately concerned about in the current economic/market picture. The Hindenburg Omen is not one of them.

Posted by Mark at 9:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): Current Market Events

Email this post

Credit cards and college students

The Level 1 article in our latest Sound Mind Investing newsletter — Big News on Campus: New Law Limits Credit Card Pitches to Students (subscribers' link) — focuses on changes in credit card rules that will directly affect teenagers and young adults.

Among them: Under the Credit CARD Act of 2009, card issuers are not supposed to open accounts for anyone under age 21 unless the young person has "sufficient income" and an "independent ability" to repay. (Alternately, an underage applicant can have a financially responsible adult co-sign on the account.)

But neither the CARD Act nor the regulations issued under the Act by the Federal Reserve clearly define "sufficient income" and "independent ability." The result: confusion.

CreditCardGuide.com (a site affiliated with well-known Bankrate.com) has been checking around to find out how various credit card companies are responding to the unclear rules.

Without specific standards for what it means to have an "independent ability to make required minimum payments" nor for proving such "ability," it has been up to card issuers to lay down the policies. The outcome, not surprisingly, is a mixed bag of vague and lenient policies....

One major credit card issuer has set the "sufficient income" level for those under age 21 at a mere $2,000 per year. Applicants are allowed to include scholarships, grants, and parental contributions in that total. Since these sources of income for most full-time students would exceed more than $2,000; effectively any student under the age of 21 could be approved under that guideline.

Other card issuers don't give specific income information in the online application material, nor guidelines for which sources of income are acceptable. In online chats, however, customer service reps from several card issuers specifically stated that personal income may include other income than employment income, including financial aid such as grants — and even loans.

As for verifying any stated sources of income, the verification process for that income appears to be as loose as the income requirements themselves. For example, when asked how proof of income should be provided, the customer service rep for one card issuer in an online chat replied, "On the application, put how much income you have in one year." When asked if the card issuer would call for verification, the rep indicated that there would be no following up.

The potential problems are apparent: some young people will no doubt stretch the truth on card applications, claiming income that doesn't exist; others will simply claim students loans or grants as income, making the new rules largely ineffective.

Asked how card issuers will gauge "sufficient income," Gerri Detweiler, a personal finance expert for Credit.com, told SMI that credit reporting agencies will use "capacity scores" for young credit card applicants. They're "similar to credit scores in that they gather information from various sources and predict an applicant's ability to pay," she said.

Of course, credit agencies will have a limited amount of data on which to draw because most young people lack a financial history, so it is unclear just how helpful a "capacity score" will be.

Whatever the challenges of implementation, these new rules are now the law of the land. We'll simply have to "wait and see" to judge their effectiveness.

Posted by Joseph at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): College, Family Finances

Email this post

Are bonds bubbling?

Economists and investing analysts are engaged in a serious debate about whether the U.S. economy is headed toward inflation or deflation. The deflation arguments have picked up speed this summer, fueled by an increase in reports showing that the economy appears to be slowing again.

While the experts remain (sharply) divided about whether we will tip into outright deflation or not, the mere threat of it has had profound implications on the investment scene.

High-quality bonds are one of the few investments that would be expected to perform quite well in a deflationary environment, and investors have been pouring money into bonds like crazy over the past few years (though not necessarily because they believe the deflation story — there are other reasons investors have flocked to bonds as well, such as fear/loathing of stocks, asset re-allocation by aging boomers, etc.).

The incredible surge of money into bonds and bond funds since 2008, coupled with the stark overall performance difference between stocks and bonds over the past decade, has led to intriguing questions: Are bonds in a bubble? Are stocks attractively priced relative to bonds?

Unfortunately, there aren't clear-cut answers, largely because the answers hinge on the way the deflation/inflation economic path unfolds. And contrary to what many experts would have you believe, nobody knows what will happen next.

This chart (click here to enlarge) stunned me when I stumbled across it recently at The Big Picture blog. For some time now, SMI has been warning about the increasing risk of bond funds due to bond valuations getting stretched (see, for example, my October 2009 article, Re-Evaluating the "Safe" Part of Your Portfolio), but I had no idea that Treasury returns over the past decade resembled those of tech stocks during their heyday.

Big Picture author Barry Ritholtz adds the following commentary:

Over the past few months, I have been saying US Treasuries remind me of the dot com stocks circa 1997-98 in three ways:

1) You knew momentum was taking them (much) higher;
2) You knew it was going to end badly;
3) If you were honest, you admitted you had precisely zero idea when the day of reckoning would be.

Plenty of others, though, say this isn't a bond bubble. They would argue this is merely the rational response to looming deflation on the horizon.

While acknowledging that it's unknowable at this point how this will turn out (future deflation will mean bonds continue gaining, whereas avoiding deflation and a legitimate turn towards economic recovery will potentially expose them to grave danger), it is interesting to note that this long "reversion to the mean" process of stocks becoming cheaper and bonds becoming more expensive has led to valuation conditions we haven't seen in some time.

For example, consider this chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average Dividend Yield minus the 10-Year Treasury Yield (courtesy of Bespoke Investment Group). The huge amount of money flooding into Treasuries has pushed their yields below the yield currently being offered by the Dow's stocks. Aside from a brief spike during the financial panic, this condition hasn't been seen in nearly 50 years.

Whatever you think about the underlying merits of it, fund flows out of stocks and into bonds have been breathtaking. USA Today reports that since the beginning of 2008, bond funds have had $601 billion of cash inflows, while stock funds have seen $240 billion in outflows.

But here's something to keep in mind: As headlines like this one from the New York Times become more common — "In Striking Shift, Small Investors Flee Stock Market" — remember that small investors usually aren't "ahead of the game" when it comes to timing their investment moves. More often than not, they do things at exactly the wrong time.

Posted by Mark at 12:55 PM | TrackBack
Category(s): Current Market Events

Email this post

Now available: September issue of SMI!

The September 2010 edition of the Sound Mind Investing newsletter is rolling off the press today — and, of course, it's already available online to our web members.

Even if you're not yet an SMI subscriber, you can still access a few goodies (just use the links below).

Did you know that even during the stock market's "worst of times," perseverance still rewarded the steadfast? SMI's founder and publisher Austin Pryor has details in Facing Your Fears: What If We Have a Market Like We Had During the Great Depression?

Also free to non-subscribers is this month is an article on how you're likely to boost your returns if you invest at a particular time of the month. Read Profiting from Monthly "Seasonality" in the Stock Market.

And our friends at Crown Financial Ministries explain how a strong sense of career direction can help young people avoid costly trial and error when pursuing an education. Find out more in Guiding Your Children Toward Their Career Calling.

Rounding out our September issue are these subscriber-only articles:

• "Mortgage-Backed Bond Funds: Higher Yields for Long-Term Savers";
• "Preferential Treatment: Preferred Stocks Outpace Bond Yields";
• "New Law Limits Credit Card Pitches to Students"; and
• "What Is Your Most Valuable Possession?" — a thought-provoking piece on the value of time.

Our September cover story — by William Bernstein, author of The Investor's Manifesto — offers advice on "Fine-Tuning the Risk in Your IRA, 401(k), and Other Retirement Accounts."

In addition to encouraging articles and step-by-step guidance on how to implement our performance-producing and time-tested investing strategies, SMI web members also gain access to terrific online tools such as our 401(k) Fund Tracker.

Not yet an SMI print subscriber or web member? Today's a great day to sign up! If you become a web member, you'll gain instant access to the September 2010 issue, plus back issues for the past three years!

Posted by Joseph at 9:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): SMI General Announcements
Tag(s): new issue

Email this post

Employees still taking huge risks with their 401(k)s

We've been writing for years about the huge risk employees take with their 401(k) savings when they invest a large portion in the company stock of their employer. And while the trends have improved over the years, this new Forbes report indicates a whole lot of employees have yet to get the message.

For example, when we last wrote about this issue in December 2007, 57% of the assets in Coke's 401(k) plan were invested in Coke stock. Forbes says that level is 51% today. Better, but not much.

Let me put it bluntly for the benefit of new readers. This is one of the biggest risks "normal" people take with their retirement savings. It's also one of the most easily correctable ones, in most cases.

I've heard people agonize about the decision to reduce the amount of company stock they own. In many cases they legitimately believe their employer is a great investment — significantly better than the alternatives they would invest in if they were to sell company stock. Some of them are even right about that.

Unfortunately, it's a risk you can't afford. The landscape is littered with the carcasses of blue-chip, brand name companies whose employees never dreamed they would fail. And yet they did. You simply can not take the chance that your retirement savings will be devastated at the same time you lose your job and benefits. That's way too many eggs for any one basket, no matter how confident you are in that basket.

Posted by Mark at 1:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): Investing Principles, Retirement

Email this post

Tea Party pressure on defense spending?

In addition to writing for Sound Mind Investing, I also churn out the "Money" page for WORLD, the bi-weekly Christian-based news magazine.

I mention this because my report in the August 28 issue (already available online) relates to a comment someone made on the SMI member blog a few days ago: "I say 'Thank you Lord' for the rise of the Tea Party movement," he wrote. "Wouldn't it be great if the government had to cut back on spending and lower taxes?"

Many Americans would agree with that sentiment — in theory. But where would such spending cuts be made? Social Security (the biggest area of federal spending)? Medicare? Veterans' benefits? The choices quickly get tough because voters are on the receiving-end of so many federal dollars.

That's why it seems likely that the easiest area to cut will be the defense budget, as Tea Party-inspired conservatives make common cause with Congressional doves. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates tried to get out in front of the budget-cutting forces by making his own proposals for defense-spending reductions.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, read the WORLD story, "Tea Party at the Pentagon."

Update: Tuesday's Wall Street Journal provides a brief primer on the Tea Party movement by Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, authors of the newly released book, Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto (HarperCollins).

Posted by Joseph at 4:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): Taxes
Tag(s): federal budget, taxes, Tea Party

Email this post

Condolences — and confidence

As we noted in the cover article of July's Sound Mind Investing newsletter, the thing that drives SMI is our desire to help people become more generous givers.

For many years, generosity has also the primary teaching focus of writer and pastor, Brian Kluth, author of the popular devotional, 40-Day Journey Toward a More Generous Life.

Last night, after an eight-year battle against cancer, Brian's wife Sandi passed from this life to the next. We hope you'll hold Brian and his family in your prayers.

Posted by Joseph at 4:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): Giving and Stewardship

Email this post

New rules for debt-settlement companies

The Federal Trade Commission has issued new rules that update our July 2009 SMI newsletter story, Settle A Debt for Less than You Owe?

The Baltimore Sun provides the basics.

Companies promising to settle debts for less than you owe soon won't be able to charge for their services until they do their job.

The Federal Trade Commission...plans to outlaw advance fees charged by for-profits pitching debt relief services over the telephone beginning Oct. 27. After that, consumers won't have to pay a fee until a debt is reduced.

Also starting next month, debt settlement companies must disclose to prospective clients the cost of the program, how long it will take to get the results promised and any negative consequences of the debt relief program.

USA Today personal-finance writer Sandra Block adds more:

The rule will crack down on marketing companies that earn big commissions for signing up as many customers for debt settlement as they can, says Gerri Detweiler, personal finance expert for Credit.com. These businesses have no interest in determining whether consumers are good candidates for debt settlement, she says....

[Still,] Detweiler contends that debt settlement remains a viable option for some consumers who have large credit card debts but aren't good candidates for bankruptcy....

[T]he FTC rule provides a good guide to the kinds of questions you should ask before you [sign up with a debt-settlement company]. For example:

• What's your success rate, and what percentage of people drop out of your program?....
• How much will it cost, and how long will it take to settle my debts?....
• How much will I need to save? Debt-settlement companies typically ask you to make regular payments to a dedicated account. When a certain amount has been saved, they'll go to your creditors and offer to pay off a percentage of the debt. The rule requires debt-settlement firms to provide a reasonable estimate of the amount you'll need to save before they'll make an offer.

Despite the new rules, the advice in our 2009 article still stands: "Although debt-settlement companies have helped some debtors, this is definitely a 'let-the-buyer-beware' area."

Another point worth mentioning — FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz says that before hiring a debt-settlement firm, it's a good idea to call your creditors and explain your situation. "You can sometimes develop your own workout plan," Leibowitz says. He notes that in some cases creditors "are willing to help consumers because it's in their own best interest."

Or as Larry Burkett used to put it, "It's better to run toward your creditors than to run away from them."

Posted by Joseph at 10:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): Family Finances
Tag(s): debt, debt-settlement

Email this post

On the radio

On Monday I joined host Bob Crittenden on The Meeting House, produced by Alabama's Faith Radio.

Bob and I chatted about SMI's 20th anniversary — and about our August-issue Level 1 article on credit scores (subscribers' link).

You can listen to the 15-minute segment below — or, if you prefer, right click (and "save link as") here to download an mp3.

Posted by Joseph at 11:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): SMI General Announcements
Tag(s): credit scores, radio

Email this post

Are home buyer resale warranties a good idea?

We moved in the spring, and it seems like the move has created as many questions as it answered: What should I do with my old stuff, sell it or trade it? Which digital services do I really need at the new house? Are mortgage-savings programs a good idea?

The newest question is whether or not to get a "home buyer resale warranty" (not to be confused with a home warranty offered by a builder). If you're unfamiliar with these, they're more or less a service contract on various components of your house, such as appliances, HVAC, and water heaters. They are usually considered at the onset of a relocation, but many can be purchased at any time.

The one we're being offered is by American Home Shield. It costs $356/year for the basic plan ($512/year for the "Enhanced Plan") and works like this: when a covered item breaks down, you can contact them by phone or online and request a service call. After the request is processed, one of their "approved and insured contractors" will come out to diagnose and fix the problem. The cost for this "Trade Service Call" is $60.

Sounds reasonable, but let's look at some of the fine print:

• "This Trade Service Call Fee applies to the initial visit by a contract for each covered trade. This initial fee covers any additional contractor visits required for the same breakdown within 30 days of the original service date. Additional charges may apply for some repairs and replacements."
• "... Warranty covers the repair or replacement of many system and appliance breakdowns, but not necessarily the entire system or appliance."
• "... may provide cash back in lieu of repair or replacement in the amount of AHS's actual cost to repair or replace such item, which in most cases may be less than actual retail pricing."
• "... [items needing to be replaced] will be replaced with units having comparable features, not necessarily the same dimension, color, and/or brand."

Hmmmm... you thinking what I'm thinking? That's a lot of fine print. Let me see if I've got this right:

My two-year-old $1,100 Kenmore stainless steel 3 x 3 x 6-foot side-by-side fridge is acting wonky. So I call, a technician comes out to "fix" the problem and I shell out 60 bucks. 31 days later, it's acting up again so I reluctantly make another call. After parting with another $60, tech tells me it's unfixable.

I call AHS and they give me two options: I can either have the $600 it would cost them to replace it with a "comparable" fridge, or they'll deliver me a brand new 2.5 x 3.5 x 6.2-foot Hotpoint bottom-freezer... in bisque.

This is a real possibility.

So let's do the math: $512 for the Enhanced Plan (basic plan doesn't cover refrigerators) + $60 + $60 = $632. So in essence I've either payed $632 in order to get $600 (which isn't usually a good deal) — OR — I paid $632 for a fridge that doesn't match ...have the same features... or fit (which is arguably an EVEN worse deal).

Of course, while this is a possibility, it isn't a certainty. Instead, he could have fixed it the first time he came out and I could have no more problems the rest of the year.

Then I'm only out $572 ($512 + $60) for a repair that, according to AHS's literature, averages $157. In that case it would have been worth it because I... wait a minute... no... no, it still wouldn't have been worth it. I just flushed $415 down the toilet!

And speaking of toilets, the average cost to repair one is $70 and the average cost to replace one is $285. So if my toilet broke instead of the fridge, I just paid $572 to have an old one fixed when I could have spent the same amount and bought TWO brand new ones!

So you can see, the fewer things that break, the more "expensive" this coverage is. If you really want to get your money's worth, you need a lot of things to break. I don't know about you, but I'm not big on rooting for my house to fall apart so that I can get my money's worth out of a warranty. Come to think of it, kinda sounds like insurance... EUREKA! Call it a warranty, call it a service contract, call it whatever you want, but we've discovered the truth: it's just another form of insurance.

Nothing wrong with insurance as long as you know that's what you're getting. So back to my original question, are these warranties a good idea? If the seller pays for it, then sure, why not. But if it's coming out of your pocket then consider the age of the home, its various components, and what exactly is covered in order to make an informed decision. Again, pay attention to the fine print.

In our first home we chose to get one because we were first-time home buyers and it gave us a little peace of mind (which is, perhaps, the biggest selling point). But when we had a plumbing issue within that first year, since it had to do with pipes outside the footprint of the walls, it wasn't covered (said it right there in the fine print and a customer service rep confirmed it for me, unfortunately).

So will we get a "home buyer resale warranty"? Doesn't look like it. The home is only four years old and we have adequate savings to cover any breakages that would have been covered by the warranty. What we could do each year is put the contract fee (or premium, pending how you look at it) in a separate savings account just for home repairs (not unlike what I suggested for pet insurance). That way if we need it, we'll have it. And if we don't need it, at least we didn't wash it down a drain that never needed fixing.

Posted by Matthew at 9:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): Family Finances
Tag(s): budget, money saving tips, mortgage

Email this post

The end of Bing Cashback

(Bumped — with an update)

It's too bad really, I was a big fan of Bing Cashback. I first started using Bing Cashback late last year, when, in an effort to diversify the free internet services I frequent (i.e. I don't like relying too much on any one provider, be it Yahoo, Google, or Microsoft), I switched to Bing Search. Since that time, I've saved nearly $250.

But according to their site, that's all changing:

We are writing to notify you that the Bing cashback program will be discontinued, and the last day to earn cash back on your Bing Shopping purchases will be July 30, 2010.

So why did it close down? Usually, these things just boil down to profitability. But here's NPR's take:

Note that Microsoft themselves said, "We did not see the broad adoption we had hoped for." That could mean not enough users of the program or not enough increased search engine market share or... But who knows?

So what if you're a Bing Cashback user and you have rebate money you haven't redeemed? No worries, you have until July 30, 2011.

But what if you're such a Bing devotee that you aren't interested in other rebate programs? There may be hope for you after all. Did you notice that at the end of their announcement, they say, "...and we are currently working on an exciting new program which you will hear more about from us later this summer."

Hmmmm... I'm intrigued.

Update: Rumors are flying around that Bing Cashback might team up with Amazon. Whether or not that is true is anyone's guess. Until we know for sure, you can use this handy list of other rebate sites from Comparerewards.com for your online shopping.

Posted by Matthew at 4:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): Family Finances
Tag(s): budget, family finances, money saving tips

Email this post

Winner #20 in SMI's 20th Anniversary Referral Contest

Congratulations to Jeff Hudson of Evansville, Indiana. Jeff was the final winner in our refer-a-friend contest — he won a one-year FREE SMI web membership.

You can still get FREE Sound Mind Investing. How? For every friend you refer who becomes a subscriber or web member and lists you as their referrer, you'll get two free months of SMI added to your active print subscription or web membership! (Offer only applies to current SMI web members or print subscribers.) And there's no limit to the number of free months you can get this way.

So congratulations, Jeff, on winning and thanks to EVERYONE who entered and referred folks to Sound Mind Investing. Word of mouth continues to be one of our biggest sources of new readership, so we are very grateful to you for sharing what we do here at Sound Mind Investing with your friends and family.

We hope you have enjoyed celebrating our 20th Anniversary with us. We wouldn't be here without you!

Posted by Matthew at 8:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Category(s): SMI General Announcements
Tag(s): contest winner

Email this post