GASB Standards: A Synopsis in Plainer English

With GASB reports now coming out showing massive liability revaluations for public pensions union-funded think tanks are scrambling to reassure the public that benefits do not need to be cut and everyone just needs to chill. Not unlike:
.

.
How relaxed people in Packerland were during the second-half collapse in Seattle is debatable as is the reasoning behind a Synopsis in Plain English put out by the National Public Pension Coalition seeking to undercut the new GASB methodology that replaced the old make-up-your-own-numbers methodology that governments had been using to get into this mess.  It may work…..on anybody who doesn’t think too much on the propaganda being spewed.

“While this information will, in some cases, give the appearance that a government is financially weaker than it was previously, the reality of the government’s situation will not have changed.”

It had always been financially weaker.

Further, the new GASB standards only apply to how pension obligations are reported on financial statements and have no direct impact on how public officials decide to fund public pension system.

So New Jersey can keep skipping contributions.

 The bottom line is, don’t panic.  While the new financial reports will give pension opponents an excuse to declare a crisis, the reality is that very little has changed.  The best way for local and state governments to provide a secure retirement for public employees is to continue to pay the actuarially required contribution.

 Continue?

Pension funds are invested in the stock market, and assets can fluctuate with the ups and downs on Wall Street.  In the past, pension plans have “smoothed” (or averaged) market returns over a 3-5 year period to reduce the volatility of these fluctuations.

Though actuarial value always turns out to be higher than market value regardless of past history since smoothing is a euphemism for making up your own asset value.

Under the new GASB standard, however, any unfunded pension liabilities must be discounted at a different rate of return—that of high-grade municipal bonds. These bonds have achieved anywhere from 2.5 – 4.5% recently, far lower than the 7-8% that most plans currently assume. When a lower discount rate is assumed, the current year liability looks larger.

Though that interest rate should be 0% instead of 2.5%-4.5% since the money for those unfunded liabilities is not there and therefore not getting any earnings.

Anti-pension activists will use the new net pension liability as a scare tactic, claiming that taxpayers owe pensioners vast sums of money. They may use the large liability numbers to push for pension reductions, or even, elimination.

So taxpayers DO NOT owe pensioners vast sums of money?  If so then why not close the plans down, make up that slight underfunding, and set up Defined Contribution plans where taxpayers won’t be able to play actuarial games to get out of paying.

 This is incredibly dishonest.  For most states, unfunded pension liabilities represent a manageable debt that can be paid down over time, similar to a homeowner making a mortgage payment. An initial mortgage debt of $300,000 might seem scary, but of course, the homeowner does not have to pay the bank this entire amount at once, instead paying it down monthly over 15 or 30 years. Pension debt works the same way.

Not public pension debt.  Try skipping part or all of a mortgage payment (something that New Jersey has done for about 20 straight years).

Also, most systems will continue to fund their pensions and make calculations for funding the old way—reporting the actuarially required contribution, along with its liabilities and the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL). These numbers will differ from the new GASB numbers, perhaps significantly. Seeing multiple sets of pension numbers could be confusing for stakeholders, who may not necessarily understand the differences between the two sets of calculations.

Or want to understand them since it conflicts with dueling agendas – getting big benefits without anyone paying for them.

39 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on February 4, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    While just about all of the NPPC’s “Synopsis” was materially misleading, (in addition to your very important point that discounting the UAAL at the long-term bond rate is appropriate because no corresponding assets exist upon which to earn investment income) perhaps most so was the comparison to a home mortgage, where they said …

    “For most states, unfunded pension liabilities represent a manageable debt that can be paid down over time, similar to a homeowner making a mortgage payment. An initial mortgage debt of $300,000 might seem scary, but of course, the homeowner does not have to pay the bank this entire amount at once, instead paying it down monthly over 15 or 30 years. Pension debt works the same way.”

    Hardly accurate because while the balance on a home mortgage is associated with payments due in the FUTURE, pension UAAL’s are liabilities associated with service rendered in the PAST, but for which corresponding assets should ALREADY exist, but don’t.

    Reply

  2. Posted by hondo on February 4, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    I guess the fear and anxiety is setting up! Here NJFMA President Donnelly’s try to calm those uncertainties.

    Trenton Times and NJ.com feature President Donnelly’s Editorial
    01/20/2015
    By NJFMBA President Ed Donnelly

    I would like to bring some clarity to the extremely confusing make-up of the New Jersey pension system.

    The system consists of five separate and distinct parts. In addition to the Police and Fireman’s Retirement System (PFRS), school employees are members of the Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund (TPAF), Troopers are members of the State Police Retirement System (SPRS), judges are members of the Judicial Retirement System (JRS) and all other public employees are members of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Each system has specific funding formulas and retirement benefits.

    In 2011, the Legislature enacted Chapter 78, which consisted of reforms to all five parts of the pension system. Among those reforms included higher contributions from employees, reductions to benefits for active and future employees and the elimination of cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).

    Another important piece of the legislation was the creation of local and state distinctions between the systems. What that means is firefighters, police, EMTs, dispatchers and other local government employees do not receive funding from the state for their pensions; they rely solely on payments from the employees and their municipalities. Local government budgets fund the employer portion of the system.

    Currently, the police and fire (PFRS) system is funded to 77 percent. Actuaries consider 80 percent to be healthy. Since 2010, PFRS members contribute 10 percent of their salary toward their pension, which is an increase from 8.5 percent. No other workers covered by the New Jersey public employee pension system contributes to that level.

    Unfortunately, the state has continued its actuarial practice of using the increased contributions of career firefighters and police officers to offset other items in the state budget outside of the pension fund. Last year, more than $54 million of increased employee contributions were pilfered from the PFRS system.

    The police and fire pension system’s unique characteristics must be considered. PFRS is funded at a higher level, because municipalities and police and firefighters have been contributing their share. The other four parts of the pension system, however, require the state to contribute to them, but it has continuously shortchanged them.

    Local governments are making their payments. If the monies from the system stay in the system and strict funding practices are followed, our system will grow even stronger and healthier without further amendments or restructuring. Why would we restructure part of a system that is working?

    It is expected that the Pension and Benefit Study Commission formed by Gov. Christie will recommend further reform. There have been back-room conversations in regard to implementing a 401(K) for current and future members along with other reforms. The PFRS needs to be analyzed separately. The healthiest plan in the system should be carved out, preserved and used as a model for what works. With the distinct differences in the systems, it would be unjust to use a “broad stroke” approach for all funds. Such an approach should not be considered, let alone implemented.

    The governor and Legislature should be diligent and demand that before any further changes to public employee pensions are proposed, objective information should be gathered and dialogue with the leaders of the unions representing the pensioners should be conducted.

    Eddie Donnelly is president of the New Jersey State Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association, which represents more than 5,000 active and retired career firefighters, EMTs and dispatchers.

    Follow The Times of Trenton on Twitter @TimesofTrenton. Find The Times of Trenton on Facebook.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 4, 2015 at 3:16 pm

      (1) Quoting … “In 2011, the Legislature enacted Chapter 78, which consisted of reforms to all five parts of the pension system. Among those reforms included higher contributions from employees, reductions to benefits for active and future employees and the elimination of cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).”

      Perhaps I missed it, but exactly what “benefit reductions” (beyond the COLA suspension) impacted those already “active” when the 2011 changes were implemented ?
      ————————————-

      (2) Quoting … “Currently, the police and fire (PFRS) system is funded to 77 percent. Actuaries consider 80 percent to be healthy. Since 2010, PFRS members contribute 10 percent of their salary toward their pension, which is an increase from 8.5 percent. No other workers covered by the New Jersey public employee pension system contributes to that level.”

      The 77% funded is based on the old GASB accounting rules. Under the new rules, it has dropped to about 65%, considered SO BAD, that if it drops just a bit lower (to 60%), and were a Private Sector pension Plan, US Gov’t regulations would precluded any additional pension accruals for current workers. So how about ending this BS ?

      And as to your WRONG comment that an 80% funding ratio is “healthy”, the following is what the US American Academy of Actuaries has to say about it:

      http://www.actuary.org/files/Pension%20Funding.pdf

      The beginning: “The health of defined-benefit pension plans is a key issue to the tens of millions of Americans who are receiving or expecting to collect pension benefits. Some have said that the level of funding – specifically an 80 percent funded level – should be used as a general benchmark to determine whether pension plans are financially healthy. In reality, however, no single level of funding distinguishes a healthy plan from an unhealthy plan. In fact, plans should have as their objective accumulating assets equal to 100 percent of relevant pension obligations.””

      ————————————–

      (3)Quoting … “Since 2010, PFRS members contribute 10 percent of their salary toward their pension, which is an increase from 8.5 percent. No other workers covered by the New Jersey public employee pension system contributes to that level.”

      So is contributing 10% of your pay to a plan where the expected level annual TOTAL COST(using appropriate assumptions) of your EXTREMELY GENEROUS promised pensions is 30-40% of pay assuming COLAs are NEVER reinstated and 40-50% of pay assuming they are reinstated supposed to make Taxpayers happy ….. with THEIR assign contributions targeted at (using the midpoints of the above ranges) ….. (35%-10%=) 25% (with no COLAs) and (45%-10%=) 35% (with COLAs reinstated) ? Especially when the comparable contributions towards THEIR retirements from their Private Sector employers are rarely more than 3-4% of pay into a 401K Plan ?

      So again……. how about ending the BS?

      ——————————————-

      (4) Then you go on the the “usual” blaming of the lack of full Taxpayer contributions, to which my response is….

      Taxpayers must stay focused on the fact that “funding” requirements FOLLOW from (and directly in proportion to) Plan “generosity”. Not being able to fully fund a very “generous” Plan is usually NOT due to a lack of political will, but due to the fact that the HUGE sums needed to do so are simply not available (while meeting a city’s essential service needs)….. with the ROOT CAUSE of this (incorrectly labeled) “funding problem” being directly traceable to grossly excessive pension/benefit “generosity”.

      Funding” problems are a CONSEQUENCE of that excessive generosity, not a CAUSE of the financial pension mess many States and Cities now find themselves in.
      ——————————————————————————
      (5) Quoting … “It is expected that the Pension and Benefit Study Commission formed by Gov. Christie will recommend further reform. There have been back-room conversations in regard to implementing a 401(K) for current and future members along with other reforms. The PFRS needs to be analyzed separately. The healthiest plan in the system should be carved out, preserved and used as a model for what works. With the distinct differences in the systems, it would be unjust to use a “broad stroke” approach for all funds. Such an approach should not be considered, let alone implemented.”

      “Healthiest” yes …..but CERTAINLY not “healthy”, and with (under the new GASB accounting rules) a funding ratio of about 65%, in extremely POOR condition.

      And the eminently clear justification for FREEZING the LOCAL (as well as the STATE) Plans (with ZERO further growth) is that the promised benefits are grossly excessive by any reasonable measure, always AT LEAST 3x-4x greater in value at retirement than those of comparable Private Sector workers when retiring at the SAME age, with the SAME service, and the SAME age at retirement.

      Taxpayers are fed-up with the decades-long financial “mugging” perpetrated upon them by the insatiably greedy Public Sector Unions/workers and enabled by our self-serving, vote-selling, contribution-soliciting, taxpayer-betraying elected officials, always willing to SELL their favorable votes on Public Sector pay, pensions, and benefits, for Public Sector Union/worker campaign contributions and election support.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on February 4, 2015 at 3:24 pm

        Hondo, I realize that you just passed this along, so my above response was not directed at you, but at NJFMA President Donnelly’s very misleading and disingenuous editorial.

        Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on February 9, 2015 at 12:50 pm

        TO the greatest taxpayer in NJ, do you have tax deferred retirement accounts? In your tax deferred plan did you contribute the max? If the answers to the questions are yes, then you have not experienced the full brunt of federal or state income tax obligations for your income level. You are a ranting hippocrit who benefit from tax exceptions under IRS rules. Union workers benefit from contract language and IRS retirement rules. You should focus your attention on protecting your untapped retirement savings that all levels of government are turning their attention towards, untaxed retirement monies are about to be recouped, pre-retirement the government needs money.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on February 9, 2015 at 1:05 pm

          Quoting … “Union workers benefit from contract language and IRS retirement rules. ”

          Hardly that simple … No, Public Sector Union “workers” are the financial beneficiaries of the decades-long collusion between your Unions (BUYING the favorable votes of the elected officials on your pay, pensions, and benefits, with campaign contribution and election support) and our self-interested, vote-selling, contribution-soliciting, taxpayer-betraying elected officials.

          The RESULT of that collusion are pension (and benefit) promises FAR FAR greater than necessary (to attract and retain a qualified workforce), just, fair to Taxpayers, or affordable…. and with all but the 10-20% of the total cost of these grossly excessive promises actually paid for with worker contributions (INCLUDING all the investment earnings thereon), thrust upon the Taxpayers to pay for.

          By strongly advocating for very material reductions in those promises (for all CURRENT workers), we are simply trying to right this terrible “WRONG” perpetrated upon the taxpayers.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 9, 2015 at 1:54 pm

            Is this collusion you speak of similar to Cousin CC’ s political collaborations with the “one world” Koch Brothers? They use their billions to purchase the whole CC administration and the National Republican Party. North Jersey suburbs get the Pilgrim Pipeline as result of the Governor’s Koch connection. Where is your outrage? Your 401k will become an after tax accumulation at retirement.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 9, 2015 at 2:41 pm

            No Anon, the collusion I speak of DIRECTLY resulted in these grossly excessive pensions at HUGE theoretical cost to Taxpayers (which, by the way … ain’t gonna be fulfilled).

            There is ZERO (yes ZERO) justification for Public Sector pensions that are ROUTINELY (and easily demonstrated to be) 3x-4x greater in value at retirement than those typically granted comparable Private Sector workers retiring at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service….. and with 80-90% of the total cost thrust upon the Taxpayers.

            Tying to divert attention from this great Public Sector worker pension/benefit injustice to Private Sector taxpayers with your diatribe against the Koch Bothers won’t work with anyone with a brain. And If you bothered to look it up, the Koch brothers are HUGE philanthropists.

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 9, 2015 at 3:59 pm

            So too were the “robber barons” of past philanthropist, this just philanthropy balances the undermining of our democracy, insures a place in the cooler area of hell. You haven’t addressed your deferred untaxed retirement accumulations in your 401k. I bet you are trying to figure out schemes to insure you pay lower or no tax. How many decades have you enjoyed deferred taxes? Hippocrit, you pay less taxes than many public employees. You probably are involved in trust/legacy planning to further defer paying taxes, what a phoney!

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 9, 2015 at 4:17 pm

            Anon, 401K money is taxed upon withdrawal (and are REQUIRED beginning at age 70.5 to make SURE the IRS gets it’s due). Trying to even remotely compared the “deferred” tax benefits of a 401k Plan to your grossly excessive 80-90% Taxpayer-funded pensions is WAY beyond ridiculous …. and you know it. The 50+% of your promised pensions that are IN EXCESS OF the amounts that likely would have been granted in the absence of the Public Sector Union/politician collusion amounts to nothing but a THEFT of Private Sector Taxpayer wealth ….. a THEFT that taxpayers will surely refuse to fund.

            Your last comment is simply MORE of your attempts to distract the readers from the eminently needed and WELL-JUSTIFIED Public Sector pension reforms.

            Greed HAS consequences !

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 9, 2015 at 9:01 pm

            TL the reality is that your private sector 401k contributions at the maximum allowed exempts you and others from paying ordinary income taxes for decades. The very public employees you rail against carry the personal income tax burden sheltered by private sector employees in deferred retirement accounts. You are a hippocrit, you are probably engaged in legacy building to further avoid income taxes, if private sector employees avoid ordinary income taxes who pays?

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 9, 2015 at 10:08 pm

            Anon, what hogwash …. right now MANY cities are paying a level annual 30%, 40%, 50% and even higher % of worker’s pay into their pension Plans. For MOST Public Sector workers these payments are far in excess of IRA maximums, and also far in excess of the maximum allowable 401K contributions.

            Do YOU pay CURRENT taxes on these annual taxpayer contributions or are they too taxed when you begin COLLECTING your pension, just as IRA accumulations are taxed as withdrawn?

            In EVERY way, the pensions/benefits granted Public Sector workers are better than and worth far more than those granted to Private Sector taxpayers, and because of their much greater size, they also have far greater tax benefits.

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 10, 2015 at 9:59 am

            TL the maximum contribution for 401k retirement savings accounts is around 21000 for 2015. So, you and others who max out do not pay ordinary income tax on these monies for decades, everyone else you rant against are paying. You are a phoney. You need to take your rage against unionize public employee pension payouts and put it in a box until you actually start feeling the real income tax bite.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 10, 2015 at 10:10 am

            Anon, More of your SAME BS.

            The 2015 401K elective contribution max is $18K, and in MANY Public Sector Plans (especially for safety workers) the taxpayer contributions are WELL in excess of that limit.

            And …. VERY IMPORTANTLY ….. very few Private Sector workers contribute anywhere near the annual maximum (so they get a MUCH smaller tax benefit), while ALL Public Sector workers (via their overstuffed pensions) get the FULL benefit of their ALSO Tax-Deferred taxpayer-contributions into their pensions.

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 10, 2015 at 12:57 pm

            The contribution limits change every year as you are aware, the contribution limits apply to public sector employees. The average % for employer contributions is around 4% of gross salary the average state salary is around $35,000 so where would you get $18000 or 20000 per year employer contribution.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 10, 2015 at 6:16 pm

            Anon, You seemed to have missed the whole point ….

            I’m NOT talking about the tax deferral YOU get on your OWN pension contributions. What I saying is that not only are the taxpayer responsible for actually PAYING the level annual 30%, 40%, 50% or more of your pay that is the balance of the REAL full cost of your annual pension (BEYOND what you actually contribute), but that you ALSO get the benefit of that TAX-DEFERRED.

            And those amount are WAY WAY over the amounts that Private Sector workers can contribute on a tax-qualified basis into IRA or 401K Plans.

        • Posted by Anonymous on February 10, 2015 at 4:11 pm

          I’m not really sure what this rant about not paying taxes on a 401k is all about …but whatever capatol gain you have you don’t pay taxes on any until sell a stock whoever bought berkshire Hathaway in 1983 for under 1,000 dollars and has not sold has a unrealized gain of over $250,000. he hasn’t paid one penny in taxes until he sells …same as a 401K

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 10, 2015 at 10:44 pm

            TL has been ranting about her income taxes being used to support public sector pensions and benefits, I say because she is maxing her employee contribution in her 401k, she is realizing a lower tax rate and taxes on remaining income. She receives a multiply decades tax benefit. She is not paying her share of present taxes so her suffering and solidarity with income taxpayers is fake.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 10, 2015 at 11:09 pm

            Anon, I love that you used the word “share”. Let explore that ….

            Public Sector workers like to say that they always pay “their share” of the pension contributions. Yup you do indeed. But what you’ll never mention (and agreed, most don’t even know) that your share … ALL OF YOUR PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS…. accumulated to the date of retirement (INCLUDING all the investment income thereon) will RARELY be sufficient to buy more than 10-20% of your VERY VERY rich promised pension.

            The TAXPAYERS’ contributions and investment earnings thereon (earnings that, in the absence of the need to fund these grossly excessive pensions, would have stayed in the taxpayers’ pockets, perhaps to help fund their much SMALLER retirements) are responsible for the 80-90% balance.

            The Taxpayers have wised up and won’t be paying. I suggest you develop a “Plan B” for your retirement needs.

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 11, 2015 at 2:03 am

            TL just who in the NJ legislature is leading your reform of the reform? CC is in Iowa talking about pig crate legislation vetoes. You are delusional the can kicker has left the road, no one will take up your campaign to eliminate NJ public employee pensions.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 11, 2015 at 2:16 am

            Anon, No “person” needs to do anything.

            NJ’s STATE pension plans are locked in a “Death Spiral” from which recovery is all but impossible, and the LOCAL Plans aren’t that far behind

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 11, 2015 at 3:28 pm

            Dear TL, sister of the grim reaper for public pensions “let it go”, there will be an answer to the shortfall.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 11, 2015 at 3:38 pm

            Anon, I agree, PRIMARILY, very material pension and retiree healthcare reductions.

            And well overdue !

          • Posted by Anonymous on February 12, 2015 at 11:20 am

            Increased employee healthcare is a certainty.

  3. Posted by javagold on February 4, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    I wonder when the Packers fans started to panic against Seahawks.
    1. Fake FG. For the TD.
    2. Recover onside kick.
    3. TD. After onside kick.
    4. Crazy score on 2 point conversion.
    5. Winning the OT coin flip.
    6. When Wilson throws the bomb.
    7. When Baldwin scores the TD.

    Relax is fine. Until it isn’t. The public takers Need to learn. He who panics first. Panics best.

    Reply

  4. “For most states, unfunded pension liabilities represent a manageable debt that can be paid down over time, similar to a homeowner making a mortgage payment.”

    Just asking, can a bank cut a deal to support politicians in the state legislature, like the public employee unions do, and retroactively increase your mortgage, and then demand additional repayment — with a high interest rate — for all the years you’d already been paying?

    In the states were taxpayers kicked in the most there is a crisis anyway as a result of those retroactive pension increases. The only question is “which interests among Generation Greed screwed which members of the generations to follow to what extent?”

    Reply

  5. Posted by PatB on February 5, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    “The accounting change “does not materially impact New Jersey’s fiscal position or the system’s current assets of approximately $40 billion,” Christopher Santarelli, spokesman for Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff, said in an e-mail. ”

    So the administration is saying much the same thing. Don’t worry, be happy.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 5, 2015 at 7:20 pm

      In reality it didn’t, but the new rules help (to some extent) lessen the deliberate underestimate of the UAAL.

      Reply

  6. Posted by Eric on February 6, 2015 at 10:27 am

    John:
    I am confused about the amount of assets in all of the plans. As PatB posted above, Mr. Santarelli indicated that there are $40 billion in assets. Is that just the state portion of these plans? Other numbers indicate $80 billion in assets. Is the later number the sum of both the local and the state plans? I know it is a basic question, but everything I read seems to be inconsistent.
    Thanks for any help,
    Eric

    Reply

  7. Posted by Eric on February 6, 2015 at 10:02 pm

    Tough Love:
    Thank you. It makes perfect sense,and it is what I certainly thought. I do not know why some writings indicate that the total is $40 B. They should be written clearly and specify that the state plan asset total is $40 B.
    One could think that another Enron, Revel, Lehman Brothers or Bernie Madoff deal had been launched.
    Eric

    Reply

  8. Posted by Jim on February 9, 2015 at 11:38 am

    So what’s the endgame here John? Eventual Federal takeover of all state and local pension plans?

    Is there any point in doing an actuarial valuation of public pension plan liabilities?

    Reply

    • Federal takeover seems unlikely since that would automatically trigger cessation of all pension contributions by all localities.

      Actuarial reports are nice (and I’m looking forward to a new set from New Jersey which typically come out around now) if you know what to believe. Participant counts, amount paid out, sometimes the market value of assets – all helpful. Anything labeled ‘actuarial’ – bogus.

      Reply

      • So the purely statistical data is useful. Presumably its more or less correct. The actuarial calcs are garbage.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on February 10, 2015 at 3:03 pm

          The actuarial “calculations” aren’t garbage. It the “assumptions” they agree to use, (mostly dictated by their employer.) that are garbage.

          Keeping the engagement seems more important that high ethics.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: