Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (9) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: corner Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 25214  
Subject: Questioning Qualified Plans Date: 5/20/2004 8:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
About 18 months ago, I read a book by Nelson Nash entitled "Becoming Your Own Banker". I have experienced a big paradigm change from reading it. Mr. Nash says there is only one pool of money in the world. At first I was mystified by this statement. As I thought about it in light of alot of other points he made in his book, I realized I was conditioned to believe that I needed to be putting aside money from "today's pool" into a "future pool". Now I view that as faulty thinking and now I apply a much, much better way to use money that enhances its value in the present and in the furture simultaneously. The better way is to keep all my money in the present and capitalize myself using the very same dollars I was squirreling away every month into a future pool via qualified plans, like 401(k)s. Now when I need to buy a car or fix my roof, I can bank with myself, setting myself up on monthly payments plus interest to meet my current needs. The more I do this, the more I will have in the future. I used to think "rate of return" was important. Now, for me, use of money is far more important. And I do not have to be concerned with what the government might give or take away next, nor about the volitilaty of the stock market. All I have to know is how much I can save each month and put into my own "bank". What is my own bank? I imagine some fools may scoff. But my own bank is a whole life dividend paying policy with a mutual company. I am not concerned with the face amount, but only how much I want to put in each month. It builds values fast and captures the profitability of the life insurance company with dividends paid to the policy, whether or not I have the money out using it.

Corner

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jacketfan Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17478 of 25214
Subject: Re: Questioning Qualified Plans Date: 5/21/2004 10:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What is my own bank? I imagine some fools may scoff. But my own bank is a whole life dividend paying policy with a mutual company. I am not concerned with the face amount, but only how much I want to put in each month. It builds values fast and captures the profitability of the life insurance company with dividends paid to the policy, whether or not I have the money out using it.

Just my personal opinion, mind you. But aside from your whole life investment (no comment on that) it would seem to me you are avoiding single digit interest rates on loans, but sacrificing at least 15% and probably more in tax savings by neglecting tax advantaged accounts all together. While rising interest rates may narrow this margin in the future, I would still suggest a compromise of some sort.

- Tom (certainly not scoffing at anyone's investment choices, though)


Print the post Back To Top
Author: joelcorley Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17479 of 25214
Subject: Re: Questioning Qualified Plans Date: 5/21/2004 8:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Jacketfan,

You wrote, Just my personal opinion, mind you. But aside from your whole life investment (no comment on that) it would seem to me you are avoiding single digit interest rates on loans, but sacrificing at least 15% and probably more in tax savings by neglecting tax advantaged accounts all together. While rising interest rates may narrow this margin in the future, I would still suggest a compromise of some sort.

Um... I may be wrong; but isn't whole life tax advantaged? I mean, as an insurance product, don't you only get taxed on the premiums and not the back-ended annuity payments?

The reason TMF generally doesn't like whole life insurance is because it essentially suffers from a high front-end sales load, to put it in mutual fund terms. TMF encourages you to avoid front-loaded funds because they seriously eat into the potential performance of the fund by reducing your contribution at the start.

In fact, TMF encourages no-load, low expense ratio index funds because it's been shown that over a long period of time, almost no fund manager can beat his unmanaged benchmark index. As a corollary, TMF presumes that getting performance as close to that target index is probably going to give the best long-term performance.

Given that life insurance products have preferred tax treatment, they may be viable retirement investments. However, as a Fool I'm skeptical that the performance of such products will exceed the equivalent investment in a properly managed qualified plan.

Of course the OP does make an interest point. He's throwing as much money as he can at the insurance product and borrows back funds when he needs them. I believe he can do that because many whole life policies have loan provisions. Of course I've never analyzed how you might be able to take advantage of this feature; but I would think it would suffer from drawbacks similar to 401(k) loans. [I think it's a shame you can't borrow against an IRA.]

I'm no expert on insurance, but my father is supposed to be. I suppose I should pick his brain about this. He's always preferred whole life insurance to any other retirement investment. Of course it's hard to argue the expense argument with him because he gets much of his own premiums back in commissions - thus making the product cost-effective for him, if not for me.

Anyway, when I figured out how relatively expensive whole life insurance was and how much actually went to the person that sold it to you, I decided that it seemed entirely unlikely that I would ever view it as an appropriate investment vehicle.

BTW: My father actually did sell me on a whole life policy when I had my first child. However, I cancelled it a few years later, partly because I never contributed more than the minimum to maintain coverage. I later replaced it with a 10-yr level term policy with 3 times the payout and only slightly larger premiums.

- Joel

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: corner Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17480 of 25214
Subject: Re: Questioning Qualified Plans Date: 5/22/2004 1:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Joel,

Of course the OP does make an interest point. He's throwing as much money as he can at the insurance product and borrows back funds when he needs them. I believe he can do that because many whole life policies have loan provisions.

I will provide a little clarification on how to use whole life dividend paying policies issued with mutual companies for maximum use of money. First of all, these policies are structured a little differently than normal. As an agent who sells these, (Don't worry. I am not trying to sell them here. This is something I believe in strongly, so much so that I believe many people can benefit by being aware of this.)I make commission on about half the premium. That is because the face amount of the policy is not the primary consideration and approximately half the premium goes to purchase "paid-up addition riders". These riders have very close to 100% cash value almost immediately. Therefore, for $100 in such a rider, over $95 dollars is avaiable within 30 days. This money is usuable for "banking" purposes. The idea of "banking" with yourself is conceptual. If you owned a grocery store, would you shop at your grocery or at your competitor down the street? When you surrender a "paid-up addition rider" this is not a loan. It is technically a withdrawal and technically does not have to be repaid. But if you are true to yourself and the concept of paying yourself for the use of your own money, you will set yourself up on a payment schedule and pay yourself back. This makes your policy stronger for future residual income. In addition, while your money is in use this way, you will collect full dividends on the base policy each year. A technical point is that it is best (though not necessary)if the mutual insurance policy contract has non-direct recognition of dividends rather than direct recognition. For people who have older whole life policies already, they should be aware of this powerful use of their potential "personal bank" which is already in existence.

I believe a personal financial base can be built this way and it will be stronger, not subject to market manipulation, and less vulnerable to political interests than using qualified plans. As for taxation, with current laws, as long as the base policy stays in force, future residual funds can be made available in later years with no taxation on the back end. Since the first income out is return of premiums, there is no taxation up to the depletion of the cost basis. After that the income can be structured as loans, and because the dividends in a policy that has been in force over several years are often strong, it is possible these dividends could be more than the principal and the interest charged for the loans. An stream of "income" structured like this is not even technically classified as income. I suggest again that use of money may be more important that rate of return.

Corner


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: joelcorley Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17481 of 25214
Subject: Re: Questioning Qualified Plans Date: 5/23/2004 11:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
corner,

You wrote, I will provide a little clarification on how to use whole life dividend paying policies issued with mutual companies for maximum use of money. First of all, these policies are structured a little differently than normal. As an agent who sells these, (Don't worry. I am not trying to sell them here. This is something I believe in strongly, so much so that I believe many people can benefit by being aware of this.)I make commission on about half the premium. …

So you have an agenda because you sell whole life insurance policies yourself. You really should disclose that in your opening post.

Also, That is because the face amount of the policy is not the primary consideration and approximately half the premium goes to purchase "paid-up addition riders".

You make it sounds like it's too sophisticated or too complicated for ordinary people to understand. That doesn't sound much like clarification to me. It still sounds like lots of hand waving and a sales pitch.

I have a policy of not putting my money in things I don't understand.

And, These riders have very close to 100% cash value almost immediately. Therefore, for $100 in such a rider, over $95 dollars is avaiable within 30 days.

In other words, these riders have a 5% front-end load, which pays your commissions.

Also, This money is usuable for "banking" purposes. The idea of "banking" with yourself is conceptual.

It's conceptual because it's not real. You're banking with your insurance company, not yourself.

And, If you owned a grocery store, would you shop at your grocery or at your competitor down the street?

As the insurance agent, I suppose this analogy applies. It's similar to the simpler argument my father made to me – he gets to keep most of the sales commissions, so whole life insurance is relatively cheap when he buys it. Unfortunately, he couldn't claim the same for his customers.

Also, When you surrender a "paid-up addition rider" this is not a loan. It is technically a withdrawal and technically does not have to be repaid. But if you are true to yourself and the concept of paying yourself for the use of your own money, you will set yourself up on a payment schedule and pay yourself back.

Well, I don't know the details; but it sounds to me that you're suggesting you withdraw cash from your whole life policy. If you paid a commission on that “rider”, cashing it in and buying it back repeatedly could eventually cost you more than the “rider” is worth.

And, This makes your policy stronger for future residual income.

Strong for the insurance company certainly.

Strength in finance is measured by asset size. I think that so far your suggestion builds strength for the insurance company, not the policyholder.

Also, In addition, while your money is in use this way, you will collect full dividends on the base policy each year.

Well, this is much the same if you use an interest-bearing checking or savings account. Of course the point I suppose is to increase your retirement assets, in which case I suppose the insurance policy might be more appropriate. Still, I remain unconvinced of the value of the product, given its apparent cost.

Finally, I believe a personal financial base can be built this way and it will be stronger, not subject to market manipulation, and less vulnerable to political interests than using qualified plans.

Not that I agree with your statements – insurance company are required to maintain investment reserves to service future payouts to its policyholders. These reserves are invested in market instruments; but the policyholder doesn't see that. Insurance policies are vulnerable from forces uniquely their own. For one thing, there is nothing insuring your insurance policy. Whole life insurance policyholders can and have been left with nothing when an insurance companies defaults – this tends to happen when the market doesn't treat its reserve investments kindly. Also, the return on your principal tends to be below historical stock market rates. And finally, I believe you could probably get comparable safety and performance by simply investing largely in a long-term corporate bond fund with a large mutual fund company.

Anyway, I'm sure there are compelling reasons why some people should buy whole life. However, the way whole life is sold and the sales commission bundled/hidden in the premiums make me skeptical that it would ever be a product I'd be interested in buying.

- Joel

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: corner Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17489 of 25214
Subject: Re: Questioning Qualified Plans Date: 5/27/2004 11:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Joel,

So you have an agenda because you sell whole life insurance policies yourself. You really should disclose that in your opening post.

My apology for not disclosing this in my opening post, but if I were trying to hide this I would never have disclosed it. I might as well disclose some other things about myself as well. I started out as a school teacher in 1976. I had 2 children in 1981 and 1984, and never returned to teaching. In 1987, I took a position with a captive insurance company that markets to the educational community. I initially learned about financial products from the insurance home office, clearly an agenda. In 1994 I left my captive company, leaving with no vested commissions, and set out on my own. I felt the insurance company was too confining and I had no freedom to explore variable products. In 1999, I passed my Series 7 with a very high score to become a licensed stock broker. As an off-site rep, I studied diligently on my own, took on-line courses, some from Motley Fool, and truly searched for a way to guide myself and others to learn to make good money in the stockmarket. By the end of 2002, a deep longing arose in my heart because I felt I was definitely missing something; there was something I was not seeing about the markets and about our money situation in this country. Sychronicity took over and I was led to some reading that has brought about a complete paradigm change in my personal financial life as well as in how I conduct my business. Recently, I "threw my hat over the fence" for the third time in my career, this time separating myself from my broker/dealer. I will not place my Series 7 license with any other broker/dealer and will let it lapse. My question to you is, if I was primarily motivated by an agenda to make commissions, do you think my journey would look like this? I would have made far more money by staying with my original insurance company and building upon the half truths and lies they spoon fed me. Though fear and insecurity has accompanied each change I have made, each change has rewarded me with the true value of additional wisdom and understanding. I assure you the changes I made were not made for financial gain. I am not wealthy and I still struggle financially, but with honest patience, my finances are healing. And I know this is a better way than using qualified plans and giving the use of my money for many years to financial institutions via those plans.

I have a policy of not putting my money in things I don't understand.

And finally, I believe you could probably get comparable safety and performance by simply investing largely in a long-term corporate bond fund with a large mutual fund company.

Perhaps I am mistaken in my conclusion, but it appears you probably invest in mutual funds. If that is the case, do you study the financial statements of every company the fund holds? If not, can you really make the claim that you understand the mutual fund where you are putting your money? How much do you know about the fund manager? What is his/her agenda? What is the mutual fund company's agenda? Do you think they do what they do out of charity? I know how difficult it is to draw conclusions about an individual company by reading financial statements. I also know how difficult it is to know alot about fund managers. Most of the information available comes from the approved sales materials and from journals that advertise to these mutual fund companies. Do you think there could be an agenda?

Well, I don't know the details; but it sounds to me that you're suggesting you withdraw cash from your whole life policy. If you paid a commission on that “rider”, cashing it in and buying it back repeatedly could eventually cost you more than the “rider” is worth.

I do not get paid on the "paid-up addition rider" initially or repeatedly. That was covered in my previous post.

Also, In addition, while your money is in use this way, you will collect full dividends on the base policy each year. (Corner wrote this and it was pasted to your post, Joel.)

Well, this is much the same if you use an interest-bearing checking or savings account. Of course the point I suppose is to increase your retirement assets, in which case I suppose the insurance policy might be more appropriate


It is much the same as using an interest-bearing checking or savings account for banking with yourself, except that you will not share in the profitability of the bank, except the the extent they agree to pay you interest. The stockholders share in the profits of the bank. If you use a whole life policy with a mutual company, there are no stockholders and the mutual insurance company shares its profits with the policy owners. Unlike the interest paid in the checking or savings account at the bank, these "dividends" are not taxed because they are used to buy those complicated and technical "paid-up additional riders". No commissions are paid to me and they create immediate additional cash values and additional death benefit. These new cash values are available to the policy owner as withdrawals and/or surrenders, but again, if the policy owner understands the value of banking with him/herself, she will strengthen her overall present and future financial picture by using her own money and honestly paying for its use (shopping at your own grocery analogy) rather than squirreling it away in a qualified plan where a financial institution will use it for a number of years before she does.

insurance company are required to maintain investment reserves to service future payouts to its policyholders. These reserves are invested in market instruments; but the policyholder doesn't see that. Insurance policies are vulnerable from forces uniquely their own. For one thing, there is nothing insuring your insurance policy. Whole life insurance policyholders can and have been left with nothing when an insurance companies defaults – this tends to happen when the market doesn't treat its reserve investments kindly.

You are correct. Insurance companies are required to maintain investment reserves which are invested mostly in real estate & equipment financing, bond issues, etc. But the policy owner has the first right of refusal for the use of the money held in his/her cash values. That is a point that is often overlooked. But all you have to do is read the whole life policy. There actually is insurance protection in most states for insurance policies. But on this same subject, there is no insurance for mutual funds and stock and bonds.
The FDIC for banks is really unfunded. How safe is any financial instrument? I recommend that you obtain a cassette tape or audio CD of "The Creature from Jekyll Island", a second look at the federal reserve. You can obtain this by calling American Media, 1-800-595-6596.
The cost is very nominal. After you listen, then order the 600 page book and read the whole thing. You will know more about money in this country and the world than most economic majors. And just to be sure you don't misinterpret my motives, I do not own any interest in American Media and I do not make any money by telling you to order this. In fact, I have spent a couple of thousand dollars of my own money this year buying these books and tapes and giving them to others. I believe the well being of our country and the world depends on people awakening to the truth about the Federal Reserve System and its role in the world economy.

Joel, I thank you for your post and thank you even more if you have taken the time to read this lengthy post. I love skepticism and I admire yours. Skepticism helps us look in behind things and eventually see more clearly. Mine has served me well. Once skepticism does its job, we can go on with our lives with new understandings and we can leave skepticism behind. I also tell people to read Robert Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and his other books. He offers a unique way of looking at money that he learned from the richest man in Hawaii whom he refers to as his rich dad. Here is a quote from his book "Prophecy" that I read yesterday. "On a more sarcastic note, rich dad later said, 'Asking Wall Street to provide financial education is the same as asking a fox to raise your chickens. If the fox is smart, the fox will be patient and raise very fat chickens. The fox works hard to gain the chidkens' trust . . . so he cares for them by providing slick brochures, branch offices, and good-looking salespeople who have been trained to sound like investors. The sales people are all trained to use the same intelligent-sounding financial jargon disguised as advice, such as, invest for the long term, have a plan, choose a family of funds, sector funds, small cap growth funds, tax free municipal bonds, 20 percent in cash, REITs, Roth IRAs, rollovers, tech stocks, blue chips, the new economy, and of course diversify, diversify, diversity.'" . . . "One of the reasons the biggest stock market crash in the history of the world did not take place right after the Enron collapse is because the foxes aren't ready for their chicken dinner yet." from pages 56 & 57.

Wishing you well, no matter what path you choose.
Corner

















Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: corner Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17497 of 25214
Subject: Re: Questioning Qualified Plans Date: 5/28/2004 8:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I just have to add another section from the book "Rich Dad's Prophecy", by Robert Kiyosaki. I hope it will invite some in 401(k) and other qualified plan land to question some assumptions and maybe to do some reading. I highly recommend all of Robert Kiyosaki's books.
I copy from pages 86 & 87:
"The other day, I was at an investment conference and I was talking to a young man who told me he was an investor. I then asked him what he was invested in. He reply was, 'I have a company 401(k) plan that has a well-diversified portfolio of large cap, small cap, a few sector funds, and of course a bond fund.'
As I nodded my head, I silently said to myself, 'Wall Street has done a good job educating this lifelong customer.' Not wanting to burst his bubble, I asked, 'How much income do you receive a month from your investments?'
'Income?' he replied. 'Why none. I don't have any income. Each month I send a portion of income, through payroll deduction, to these mutual fund companies.'
'And when do you expect to receive some income from these investments?' I asked.
'Oh, I'm twenty-seven now. I plan on letting my money grow tax free until I retire, hopefully by age sixty. Then I'll switch my portfolio to a self-directed account and live off my investments. You see, I'm investing for the long term.'
'Congratulations,' I said, shaking his hand. 'Keep on investing.'
The point is, this young man may be investing, but I would not call him an investor . . . at least not from the definition rich dad used when referring to the Cashflow Quadrant. According to rich dad, investors receive money from their investments on a regular basis. Until you begin receiving money, you may be investing . . . but you are not an investor. To prove to rich dad that I was an investor, I had to prove to him that money was flowing in . . .and had stopped flowing out."

I am still questioning qualfied plans. Is anyone else? I personally am looking for better ways. As I mentioned before the concept of becoming your own banker is one "better way" strategy. Robert Kiyosaki offers other good strategies and suggestions.
Corner


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: joelcorley Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17502 of 25214
Subject: Re: Questioning Qualified Plans Date: 5/28/2004 9:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
corner,

You wrote, I just have to add another section from the book "Rich Dad's Prophecy", by Robert Kiyosaki. I hope it will invite some in 401(k) and other qualified plan land to question some assumptions and maybe to do some reading. I highly recommend all of Robert Kiyosaki's books.
I copy from pages 86 & 87:
"The other day, I was at an investment conference and I was talking to a young man who told me he was an investor. I then asked him what he was invested in. He reply was, 'I have a company 401(k) plan that has a well-diversified portfolio of large cap, small cap, a few sector funds, and of course a bond fund.'
As I nodded my head, I silently said to myself, 'Wall Street has done a good job educating this lifelong customer.' Not wanting to burst his bubble, I asked, 'How much income do you receive a month from your investments?'
'Income?' he replied. 'Why none. I don't have any income. Each month I send a portion of income, through payroll deduction, to these mutual fund companies.'
'And when do you expect to receive some income from these investments?' I asked.
'Oh, I'm twenty-seven now. I plan on letting my money grow tax free until I retire, hopefully by age sixty. Then I'll switch my portfolio to a self-directed account and live off my investments. You see, I'm investing for the long term.'
'Congratulations,' I said, shaking his hand. 'Keep on investing.'
The point is, this young man may be investing, but I would not call him an investor . . . at least not from the definition rich dad used when referring to the Cashflow Quadrant. According to rich dad, investors receive money from their investments on a regular basis. Until you begin receiving money, you may be investing . . . but you are not an investor. To prove to rich dad that I was an investor, I had to prove to him that money was flowing in . . .and had stopped flowing out."


So Robert Kiyosaki recounts an experience where he mentally scoffs at and belittles a young man for doing the best he knows how?

Besides, the proper definition of investor is: \In*vest"or\, n. One who invests.

Since the man is investing, I think Mr. Kiyosaki is wrong. I'm sure Mr. Kiyosaki has some other meaning in mind; but belittling someone for their efforts to save for retirement is no way to convince me of anything – even if his real intent was only to disparage Wall Street. If anything, I would become irritated at the author and more skeptical of his opinions.

In theory the income from an investment is irrelevant. All that ultimately matters is total return. Of course Mr. Kiyosaki does hit on an interesting point. Investments that produce an ongoing yield tend to be more stable and often more productive investments.

For instance, corporations that do not declare dividends tend to suffer more from corruption and mismanagement as well as share dilution through inappropriate compensation packages. Dividend payments tend to help align management's interest with the interests of shareholders. And in general, dividend-paying large cap securities do tend to slightly out-perform their non-dividend paying peers over time as a group, so income from an investment is desirable for less than obvious reasons…

Finally, I am still questioning qualfied plans. Is anyone else? I personally am looking for better ways. As I mentioned before the concept of becoming your own banker is one "better way" strategy. Robert Kiyosaki offers other good strategies and suggestions.

I too have issues with qualified plans. For instance, not all corporate 401(k) plans offer worthwhile investment (or savings) choices. Many people would be better off investing in a [Roth] IRA or even a taxable account. But most people don't have the knowledge to assess the quality of their investments; so overcoming that key limitation is probably a more important issue to solve.

BTW: I know that Mr. Kiyosaki made a bundle in a booming Hawaiian real estate market; but doesn't referring to him as rich dad seem kind of pretentious?

- Joel

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: janders6 Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 24933 of 25214
Subject: Re: Questioning Qualified Plans Date: 8/5/2012 10:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
8 yrs later have you stuck with this?

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (9) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement