| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jose.bailen@gmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: Re: Motley Fool:7 Secrets to Earning Nearly DOUBLE the Marke |
 |
|
On Mar 28, 10:47 am, "David" <d...@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mar 27, 8:49 pm, "Ed" <fri...@fishinthe.net> wrote:> "David" <d...@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
According to Malkiel and others there is no such thing as stock-
picking ability. Managers that do well in one period do not show any
greater ability in later periods than average, showing that results
are largely due to chance. The average managed fund lags the market by
about 2% p.a. due to fees and costs due to high turnover (Bogle) and
over the long term they are all average. Only low cost index funds
buying the total market (not Nasdaq) can roughly equal the market and
beat 80% of managed funds.
But they don't.
They do according to Bogle. See his "The little book of common sense
investing" and below.
The actively managed funds that beat the market last year have no more
chance of doing so next year than any others. The Motley Fool has no
idea which funds will do well next year. Low costs are very important
but so are index funds.
How about over time. There are many funds that beat their benchmark over
long periods of time.
Bogle looked at the 355 funds, presumably all managed, that existed in
1970, 36 years ago. Of these, 223 have since gone out of business and
there are 132 survivors. Of the survivors, 42 beat the maket by any
amount, which is just 12% of the original set. The survivors lagged
the market by 0.7% on average but if you include the non-survivors the
performance would be much worse.
Since you have no way of knowing in advance which managed funds will
do well and which will tank, there is a 63% chance the fund will go
out of business over this sort of period and an 88% chance it will not
even equal the market. Fairly good odds in favour of index funds!
Don't chase hot funds-agreed, but there is no way of rigorously
selecting next year's fund winners, or stocks come to that. There are
no known future great funds or managers or companies, just past ones.
No one knows the future except in general terms.
Agreed.
6. Choose Shareholder-Friendly Funds - I select funds with a record
of putting their shareholders first. I look for honest and open
shareholder letters, falling expense ratios, and fund managers who
close funds to new investors when they become too big.
Low fees and no loads covers most of it.
7. Find Managers Who Eat Their Own Cooking - Why should you invest
with a fund manager who isn't also putting his money on the line next
to yours? You'd be amazed if you knew how many fund managers don't
have a dime invested in the funds they run. We make a point to look
for funds where the managers have a big chunk of their own money
riding along with yours. It's the best way to know that they take your
best interests to heart.
How do you know what the managers invest in? I am fairly sure the UK
data protection act would judge this was private information no one
has a right to know.
It's usually in the SAI. The problem is that they rarely tell you how much
the manager has invested.
Morningstar ranks funds for risk adjusted return. Five stars possible. 5
stars = top 20% in category, 4 = next 20% etc.
All Vanguard, all index:
500 Fund 3
Balanced 4
Emerging Markets 3
European Stock 3
Extended Market 3
Growth 3
Large Cap 4
Mid Cap 4
Small Cap 3
Small Cap Value 3
Total Stock Market 4
Total Int'l Stock 4
Value 4
I would give you the 5 year rank for these index funds but whenever I do
that people always say that you have to give the 150 years or more so I'll
pass.
If you really want to know:http://biz.yahoo.com/p/fam/vanguard.html
Click on profile and then performance.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
This article at the Morningstar.com website on bad funds is quite
good:
========================================================================================
22 Mutual Funds That Scream 'Dump Me!'
Monday March 26, 7:00 am ET
By Russel Kinnel
Premium Members of Morningstar.com know to head right to our Fund
Analyst Picks and Pans lists because we cut right to the chase there
and let you know what we think are the best and worst funds around.
Our methodology is quite similar for each list. For picks, we chose
funds with strong competitive advantages such as good management,
sound strategies, low costs, good stewardship, and strong long-term
performance. Picks don't have to have all of those qualities, but they
must be standouts in some areas and okay in the rest. Our pans are
focused on funds with strong competitive disadvantages.
Over time it's become clear that our picks list is much more stable
than our pans list because you can't just build up competitive
advantages overnight. Our pans list changes quite a bit. Sometimes
it's happy news--maybe a fund has made big changes and upgraded
management or cut expense ratios. For example, AllianceBernstein has
made progress on both fronts and only has a couple of funds left on
our pans list now. However, more often pans come off because fund
companies notice the same flaws we do and opt to kill off their
mistakes. As a result, we're constantly on the lookout for new pans.
I'll share 22 of the most recent additions to our pans list. Premium
Members can see the whole list of pans here and picks here.
SunAmerica Focused Large Cap Growth (NASDAQ:SSFAX - News)
At first blush, this would seem to be an appealing fund. The idea was
to hire three good subadvisors to run focused portfolios that would be
combined into a more diversified whole. In fact, with Tom Marsico,
BlackRock's Bob Doll, and Louis Navellier as the managers, this might
seem to be a no-brainer. However, SunAmerica has changed managers so
frequently that this fund has actually lagged the returns of Marsico
and Doll by a wide margin.
Consider that, over the trailing five years ending March 21, Marsico
Focus (NASDAQ:MFOCX - News) returned an annualized 7.21%, BlackRock
Large Cap Growth (NASDAQ:MALHX - News) returned 6.68%, and Navellier
Top 20 (NASDAQ:NTGRX - News) returned 3.37%, but the SunAmerica fund
returned just 3.39%. That's in line with Navellier's performance but
well behind those of Marsico and BlackRock. The reason is that the
fund changes managers frequently and either its selection or timing is
off. Doll only came on board in December 2006, and Navellier and Shawn
Price (also of Navellier) came on board in December 2005.
ING Principal Protection III (NASDAQ:IIIAX - News), IV, V, VI, VII,
VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII
That's right. We're panning a whopping 10 principal-protection funds
from ING. Principal-protection funds are a bad idea made worse by ING.
The basic concept is that the funds promise to at least return
investors' principal after a set number of years while still providing
some market upside. The catch, as with many insurance company
products, is that you pay too much for that safety. In the case of
most principal-protection funds, they invest so conservatively that
you get very little upside. In fact, many let the insurer make the
asset-allocation decision--so of course the insurer is going choose
something superconservative to protect it from having to pay off.
Interestingly, ING has recently made an about-face on its asset
allocation at these funds. It has raised the equity exposure by 10 to
15 percentage points so that the funds now have 40% to 50% in stocks.
So, a few years ago, coming out of the bear market, stocks were too
pricey, but now they're cheap? I guess they're following a sell-low/
buy-high strategy.
Either way you get lots of fees. The ING funds that we panned charge
between 1.48% and 1.75%, even though most funds that are mostly fixed
income with a slug of stocks charge half that. The performance of
these funds has borne out the fears we expressed soon after they were
launched. Of the six ING funds mentioned above with a track record of
three years or more, all are 1-star funds, and the three-year returns
range between 1.92% annualized and 3.61%. In short, your principal may
be protected from absolute losses but you'll be lucky if your return
even keeps pace with inflation.
High-Cost Low-Return Value Funds
Many of the best value managers charge nice low fees. T. Rowe Price
Equity Income (NASDAQ:PRFDX - News) charges an expense ratio of 0.71%,
Dodge & Cox Stock (NASDAQ:DODGX - News) charges 0.52%, and American
Funds Washington Mutual (NASDAQ:AWSHX - News) charges 0.57% in
expenses. So, it's kind of crazy to pay 2 to 3 times those expense
ratios for funds with poor performance.
Yet there are a slew 1- and 2-star funds that provide you the
opportunity to do just that. Ancora Equity (NASDAQ:ANQDX - News)
charges 1.80%; BlackRock Basic Value II (NASDAQ:MAVAX - News) charges
1.63%; Dean Large Cap Value (NASDAQ:DALCX - News) charges 1.85%;
Direxion Dow 30 Bull 1.25x (NASDAQ:PDOWX - News), a leveraged index
fund, charges 1.75%; Flex-funds Aggressive Growth (NASDAQ:FLAGX -
News) charges 2.32% when you factor in underlying fund costs; Payson
Value (NASDAQ:PVFDX - News) costs 1.74%; Saratoga Large Capitalization
Value (NASDAQ:SLVYX - News) charges 1.92%; and Spirit of America Large
Cap Value charges (NASDAQ:SOAVX - News) 1.97%.
Avoid those funds like the plague.
Bad ETFs
We don't have ETFs in our picks and pans lists yet, but there are
certainly some that deserve pick or pan status.
In the February 2007 issue of Morningstar FundInvestor I told readers
where not to invest in 2007 and included three ETFs: PowerShares Lux
Nanotech (AMEX:PXN - News), HealthShares Metabolic Endocrine, and
Claymore MACROshares Oil Up. The Lux Nanotech fund charges 0.73% for
an index tracking a field where the likely investment candidates are
as small as the technology. Likewise, the HealthShares ETFs have high
costs (by ETF standards) and tiny little niches such as Metabolic
Endocrine. Finally, the Oil Up fund is a pricey way to bet on the
direction of oil prices.
Russel Kinnel does not own shares in any of the securities mentioned
above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject: Re: Motley Fool:7 Secrets to Earning Nearly DOUBLE the Marke |
|
|
Sector funds are not a bad way to invest for short term gains in hot sectors
IMO. I have played these, but have pretty much abandoned the technique and
now primarily use ETFs or stocks for short term sector plays. Fidelity has
a bunch of sector funds which they call "select" funds. In years past, one
could buy and sell these almost like an ETF or a normal stock. They have
now changed the rules and they trade like their other mutual funds.
Jerry
"PeterL" <po.ning@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175035935.104304.167400@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Mar 27, 9:43 am, "jose.bai...@gmail.com" <jose.bai...@gmail.com
wrote:
Again, if you forget for one minute the self-publicity side of this
article from Motley Fool these 7 recommendations look pretty
sensible. To those who focus mostly on short term results, point 4/
is pretty useful:
All good advice, but how would that translate to "nearly double the
markets' return"?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: Motley Fool:7 Secrets to Earning Nearly DOUBLE the Marke |
|
|
On Mar 28, 11:57 am, "jose.bai...@gmail.com" <jose.bai...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mar 28, 10:47 am, "David" <d...@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
On Mar 27, 8:49 pm, "Ed" <fri...@fishinthe.net> wrote:> "David" <d...@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
According to Malkiel and others there is no such thing as stock-
picking ability. Managers that do well in one period do not show any
greater ability in later periods than average, showing that results
are largely due to chance. The average managed fund lags the market by
about 2% p.a. due to fees and costs due to high turnover (Bogle) and
over the long term they are all average. Only low cost index funds
buying the total market (not Nasdaq) can roughly equal the market and
beat 80% of managed funds.
But they don't.
They do according to Bogle. See his "The little book of common sense
investing" and below.
The actively managed funds that beat the market last year have no more
chance of doing so next year than any others. The Motley Fool has no
idea which funds will do well next year. Low costs are very important
but so are index funds.
How about over time. There are many funds that beat their benchmark over
long periods of time.
Bogle looked at the 355 funds, presumably all managed, that existed in
1970, 36 years ago. Of these, 223 have since gone out of business and
there are 132 survivors. Of the survivors, 42 beat the maket by any
amount, which is just 12% of the original set. The survivors lagged
the market by 0.7% on average but if you include the non-survivors the
performance would be much worse.
Since you have no way of knowing in advance which managed funds will
do well and which will tank, there is a 63% chance the fund will go
out of business over this sort of period and an 88% chance it will not
even equal the market. Fairly good odds in favour of index funds!
Don't chase hot funds-agreed, but there is no way of rigorously
selecting next year's fund winners, or stocks come to that. There are
no known future great funds or managers or companies, just past ones.
No one knows the future except in general terms.
Agreed.
6. Choose Shareholder-Friendly Funds - I select funds with a record
of putting their shareholders first. I look for honest and open
shareholder letters, falling expense ratios, and fund managers who
close funds to new investors when they become too big.
Low fees and no loads covers most of it.
7. Find Managers Who Eat Their Own Cooking - Why should you invest
with a fund manager who isn't also putting his money on the line next
to yours? You'd be amazed if you knew how many fund managers don't
have a dime invested in the funds they run. We make a point to look
for funds where the managers have a big chunk of their own money
riding along with yours. It's the best way to know that they take your
best interests to heart.
How do you know what the managers invest in? I am fairly sure the UK
data protection act would judge this was private information no one
has a right to know.
It's usually in the SAI. The problem is that they rarely tell you how much
the manager has invested.
Morningstar ranks funds for risk adjusted return. Five stars possible.. 5
stars = top 20% in category, 4 = next 20% etc.
All Vanguard, all index:
500 Fund 3
Balanced 4
Emerging Markets 3
European Stock 3
Extended Market 3
Growth 3
Large Cap 4
Mid Cap 4
Small Cap 3
Small Cap Value 3
Total Stock Market 4
Total Int'l Stock 4
Value 4
I would give you the 5 year rank for these index funds but whenever I do
that people always say that you have to give the 150 years or more so I'll
pass.
If you really want to know:http://biz.yahoo.com/p/fam/vanguard.html
Click on profile and then performance.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This article at the Morningstar.com website on bad funds is quite
good:
=======================================================================================> 22 Mutual Funds That Scream 'Dump Me!'
Monday March 26, 7:00 am ET
By Russel Kinnel
Premium Members of Morningstar.com know to head right to our Fund
Analyst Picks and Pans lists because we cut right to the chase there
and let you know what we think are the best and worst funds around.
Our methodology is quite similar for each list. For picks, we chose
funds with strong competitive advantages such as good management,
sound strategies, low costs, good stewardship, and strong long-term
performance. Picks don't have to have all of those qualities, but they
must be standouts in some areas and okay in the rest. Our pans are
focused on funds with strong competitive disadvantages.
Over time it's become clear that our picks list is much more stable
than our pans list because you can't just build up competitive
advantages overnight. Our pans list changes quite a bit. Sometimes
it's happy news--maybe a fund has made big changes and upgraded
management or cut expense ratios. For example, AllianceBernstein has
made progress on both fronts and only has a couple of funds left on
our pans list now. However, more often pans come off because fund
companies notice the same flaws we do and opt to kill off their
mistakes. As a result, we're constantly on the lookout for new pans.
I'll share 22 of the most recent additions to our pans list. Premium
Members can see the whole list of pans here and picks here.
SunAmerica Focused Large Cap Growth (NASDAQ:SSFAX - News)
At first blush, this would seem to be an appealing fund. The idea was
to hire three good subadvisors to run focused portfolios that would be
combined into a more diversified whole. In fact, with Tom Marsico,
BlackRock's Bob Doll, and Louis Navellier as the managers, this might
seem to be a no-brainer. However, SunAmerica has changed managers so
frequently that this fund has actually lagged the returns of Marsico
and Doll by a wide margin.
Consider that, over the trailing five years ending March 21, Marsico
Focus (NASDAQ:MFOCX - News) returned an annualized 7.21%, BlackRock
Large Cap Growth (NASDAQ:MALHX - News) returned 6.68%, and Navellier
Top 20 (NASDAQ:NTGRX - News) returned 3.37%, but the SunAmerica fund
returned just 3.39%. That's in line with Navellier's performance but
well behind those of Marsico and BlackRock. The reason is that the
fund changes managers frequently and either its selection or timing is
off. Doll only came on board in December 2006, and Navellier and Shawn
Price (also of Navellier) came on board in December 2005.
ING Principal Protection III (NASDAQ:IIIAX - News), IV, V, VI, VII,
VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII
That's right. We're panning a whopping 10 principal-protection funds
from ING. Principal-protection funds are a bad idea made worse by ING.
The basic concept is that the funds promise to at least return
investors' principal after a set number of years while still providing
some market upside. The catch, as with many insurance company
products, is that you pay too much for that safety. In the case of
most principal-protection funds, they invest so conservatively that
you get very little upside. In fact, many let the insurer make the
asset-allocation decision--so of course the insurer is going choose
something superconservative to protect it from having to pay off.
Interestingly, ING has recently made an about-face on its asset
allocation at these funds. It has raised the equity exposure by 10 to
15 percentage points so that the funds now have 40% to 50% in stocks.
So, a few years ago, coming out of the bear market, stocks were too
pricey, but now they're cheap? I guess they're following a sell-low/
buy-high strategy.
Either way you get lots of fees. The ING funds that we panned charge
between 1.48% and 1.75%, even though most funds that are mostly fixed
income with a slug of stocks charge half that. The performance of
these funds has borne out the fears we expressed soon after they were
launched. Of the six ING funds mentioned above with a track record of
three years or more, all are 1-star funds, and the three-year returns
range between 1.92% annualized and 3.61%. In short, your principal may
be protected from absolute losses but you'll be lucky if your return
even keeps pace with inflation.
High-Cost Low-Return Value Funds
Many of the best value managers charge nice low fees. T. Rowe Price
Equity Income (NASDAQ:PRFDX - News) charges an expense ratio of 0.71%,
Dodge & Cox Stock (NASDAQ:DODGX - News) charges 0.52%, and American
Funds Washington Mutual (NASDAQ:AWSHX - News) charges 0.57% in
expenses. So, it's kind of crazy to pay 2 to 3 times those expense
ratios for funds with poor performance.
Yet there are a slew 1- and 2-star funds that provide you the
opportunity to do just that. Ancora Equity (NASDAQ:ANQDX - News)
charges 1.80%; BlackRock Basic Value II (NASDAQ:MAVAX - News) charges
1.63%; Dean Large Cap Value (NASDAQ:DALCX - News) charges 1.85%;
Direxion Dow 30 Bull 1.25x (NASDAQ:PDOWX - News), a leveraged index
fund, charges 1.75%; Flex-funds Aggressive Growth (NASDAQ:FLAGX -
News) charges 2.32% when you factor in underlying fund costs; Payson
Value (NASDAQ:PVFDX - News) costs 1.74%; Saratoga Large Capitalization
Value (NASDAQ:SLVYX - News) charges 1.92%; and Spirit of America Large
Cap Value charges (NASDAQ:SOAVX - News) 1.97%.
Avoid those funds like the plague.
Bad ETFs
We don't have ETFs in our picks and pans lists yet, but there are
certainly some that deserve pick or pan status.
In the February 2007 issue of Morningstar FundInvestor I told readers
where not to invest in 2007 and included three ETFs: PowerShares Lux
Nanotech (AMEX:PXN - News), HealthShares Metabolic Endocrine, and
Claymore MACROshares Oil Up. The Lux Nanotech fund charges 0.73% for
an index ...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
From Bogle's "Little book.." again, page 90.
|
" According to investment analyst Mark Hulbert, a mutual fund
portfolio continuously adjusted to hold only Morningstar's five-star
funds earned an annual return of just 6.9 percent between 1994 and
2004, nearly 40 percent below the 11.0 percent of the Total Stock
Market Index. To make matters worse, according to Hulbert, these
highly rated funds were assuming even more risk than the market.."
So Morningstar's gurus can't pick the best funds either. I don't know
about picking the bad ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: Motley Fool:7 Secrets to Earning Nearly DOUBLE the Marke |
|
|
On Mar 28, 10:26 am, "Ed" <fri...@fishinthe.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"David" <d...@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1175071679.413561.59650@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 27, 8:49 pm, "Ed" <fri...@fishinthe.net> wrote:
"David" <d...@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
According to Malkiel and others there is no such thing as stock-
picking ability. Managers that do well in one period do not show any
greater ability in later periods than average, showing that results
are largely due to chance. The average managed fund lags the market by
about 2% p.a. due to fees and costs due to high turnover (Bogle) and
over the long term they are all average. Only low cost index funds
buying the total market (not Nasdaq) can roughly equal the market and
beat 80% of managed funds.
But they don't.
They do according to Bogle. See his "The little book of common sense
investing" and below.
He spent his life sellimg index funds. He owns managed funds.
How about over time. There are many funds that beat their benchmark over
long periods of time.
Bogle looked at the 355 funds, presumably all managed, that existed in
1970, 36 years ago. Of these, 223 have since gone out of business and
there are 132 survivors. Of the survivors, 42 beat the maket by any
amount, which is just 12% of the original set. The survivors lagged
the market by 0.7% on average but if you include the non-survivors the
performance would be much worse.
Since you have no way of knowing in advance which managed funds will
do well and which will tank, there is a 63% chance the fund will go
out of business over this sort of period and an 88% chance it will not
even equal the market. Fairly good odds in favour of index funds!
You must be using the numbers from when there were only 355 funds.
There are well over 10,000 now, I don't think 6,300 of them will close shop.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
It sounds a lot but, according to Bogle, page 131, "During the last
five years alone, an astonishing 28 percent of all general equity
funds have gone out of business."
28% in 5 years is rather faster than the 63% in 37 years Bogle gave
starting in 1970. 28% of 10,000 is 2,800 already so there should be
well over 6,300 out of business given another 32 years at that rate! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ed
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: Re: Motley Fool:7 Secrets to Earning Nearly DOUBLE the Marke |
|
|
"David" <david@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
| Quote: |
Since you have no way of knowing in advance which managed funds will
do well and which will tank, there is a 63% chance the fund will go
out of business over this sort of period and an 88% chance it will not
even equal the market. Fairly good odds in favour of index funds!
You must be using the numbers from when there were only 355 funds.
There are well over 10,000 now, I don't think 6,300 of them will close
shop.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It sounds a lot but, according to Bogle, page 131, "During the last
five years alone, an astonishing 28 percent of all general equity
funds have gone out of business."
28% in 5 years is rather faster than the 63% in 37 years Bogle gave
starting in 1970. 28% of 10,000 is 2,800 already so there should be
well over 6,300 out of business given another 32 years at that rate!
|
Fidelity has a number of funds that changed names but didn't merge, do those
count?
I bet Bogle counts them.
American funds have something like 14 share classes, if they close one fund
I bet Bogle counts that as 14. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ed
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject: Re: Motley Fool:7 Secrets to Earning Nearly DOUBLE the Marke |
|
|
"David" <david@wilkinson6337.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
| Quote: |
From Bogle's "Little book.." again, page 90.
|
" According to investment analyst Mark Hulbert, a mutual fund
portfolio continuously adjusted to hold only Morningstar's five-star
funds earned an annual return of just 6.9 percent between 1994 and
2004, nearly 40 percent below the 11.0 percent of the Total Stock
Market Index. To make matters worse, according to Hulbert, these
highly rated funds were assuming even more risk than the market.."
So Morningstar's gurus can't pick the best funds either. I don't know
about picking the bad ones.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. 5 star funds have had extrodinary performance
for at least 3 years.
It stands to reason that they would underperform. Buying 5 star funds is
performance chasing.
Morningstar's gurus aren't gurus at all. They don't pick the funds they rate
them for 'past performance'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
246 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
