View more on these topics

FCA: Advisers have been ‘sitting on hands’ post-RDR

FCA chief executive Martin Wheatley says advice firms have been “sitting on their hands” since the RDR rather than innovating to close the advice gap.

Speaking at a Lansons conference in London yesterday, Wheatley said simplified advice “never took off” but rather than innovating themselves to create a replacement, too many advice firms have been “waiting for the next step” to be laid out for them.

He said he hoped the regulator’s drive to encourage innovation in financial services, launched last week, would help change that. As part of “Project Innovate”, the FCA will establish a “contact hub” so that firms looking to innovate in technology can check what they are doing is within the rules or if they feel the wider system needs to change to adapt to new technology.

Wheatley said: “One area I would include here as a priority is automated advice where we have seen some leaps forward in related tech over the decades but frankly not enough.

“The reason we launched Project Innovate is we have been very concerned that particularly in the advice sector there has not been enough innovation since we launched the RDR, and there has been a lot of people sitting on their hands waiting for the next step.”

Wheatley went on to say that while he was not an advocate of replacing face-to-face advice, alternative models should be considered to widen access to advice.

He said: “One question is does dispensing advice always have to come with the high price tag it has? Or, in order to democratise it and get it to a wider community do we need to use different models? Not completely replacing the face-to-face model as I think we need both, but how far can we automate and deliver the returns that customers need in a safe and cost effective way, and how far can we tackle the advice gap that seems to exist for people below the threshold that IFAs want to spend the time on.”

Responding to a question from Money Marketing after his speech, Wheatley added: “Simplified advice for all sorts of reasons never took off. Partly because the product suite that could be offered through that service was very narrow and firms found it too constrained.  Automated advice is an evolution of that.”

Recommended

Mark-Carney-close-up-focused-700.jpg

Carney hints at early interest rate rise

Bank of England governor Mark Carney has warned a rise in interest rates could come sooner than expected and raised concerns over high levels of household debt and mortgage borrowing. Delivering his annual Mansion House speech in the City last night, Carney said: “The Monetary Policy Committee’s current guidance makes clear we will set monetary […]

Newsbrief megadrop

CPD June Briefing: Unauthorised Budget guidance targeted by FCA

The latest edition of Newsbrief counts as 1 hour of structured CPD and covers the regulatory and marketplace changes that took place during May 2014. Visit the Money Marketing CPD Centre to answer 10 multiple choice questions and complete this CPD activity. Just click into your CPD Plan and you’ll find each month’s marketplace changes round-up […]

Tech-Technology-Computer-Binary-700.jpg

FundsNetwork to lose contract as Barclays agrees D2C deal with FNZ

Barclays has agreed a long-term deal with technology provider FNZ to power the bank’s refurbished D2C proposition, Money Marketing understands. The wealth division of the bank announced at the end of last year that it would be relaunching its D2C service.  It plans to unveil the new platform in the first half of 2015. It currently […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 41 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Bring it on !! 11th June 2014 at 9:08 am

    I think he is describing “automatic” guidance / information provision. I dont see how a system can give the end user “advice” in a way that keeps the FCA, FOS and PI insurers happy. Anything to do with “advice” is personal and risky, technology should best be left to carry out certain tasks but please don’t suggest “advice” can be delivered in this way.

    Of course I’m quite happy if my laptop gets fined for giving duff advice but as far as I am aware it is still waiting for permission to advise from the FCA.

  2. ‘Does dispensing advice always have to come with a high price tag’ Of course it does just to pay FCA, FOS. PII etc. The regulator has made advice expensive for clients and as it would appear there is an advice gap as only those with money can afford it. Cut the cost of regulation, get the FOS members qualified so that they unders tand what advice is all about and costs might actually come down

  3. Sitting on our hands??!!! In case you hadn’t realised, sir, being an IFA is bloody hard work. Speaking for myself I work a six day week and put in at least 60 hours.

    When you analyse it out on an hourly rate I earn less than a tube train, or taxi driver.

    In case you have missed the point it isn’t our job to ‘close the advice gap’. We run businesses and as your predecessors so tartly pointed out our business model wasn’t optimal. We now in the main concentrate on those clients who for us are cost effective. It is your worry about the rest. We are not a government agency or a branch of social services.

    It may also have escaped your notice that at every turn (mainly through regulation) our margins are being squeezed. For many the cessation of renewal or trail will seriously impact their business. This in spite of the fact that Callum McCarthy encouraged us to have sustainable businesses and move to ongoing trail. This curtailment may well have two effects:

    Cutting corners and poor sales practices to repair the damage. (But at least that will keep you in work).
    And/or even more concentration on those with funds rather than wasting time on the impecunious.

    This is perhaps how you should view things or maybe you have been poorly reported

  4. Or could it be that the potential solution is just too unwieldy? Remember it cost north of £500 million to create RDR and within that change, there was no component which provided a solution to successfully delivering advice to all consumers in the ‘new world.’ That was left to us to wrestle with.

    The environment we have to operate within in, with the backdrop of an easy and often opaque retrospective complaints culture is one where the ends may not justify the means for a lot of firms and advisers.

    All a bit of a guessing game isn’t it? But blaming the industry for not wanting to play is not going to force change, as many of the larger operations will take a commercial view of the landscape before them. In fact I thought many already had and given a very clear message as to how they view life under the RDR, by closing significant parts (or all) of their advisory operations.

  5. How can this chap justify his £650K salary?

    The reason there is no innovation Martin is the FCA has piled advisers with paperwork, regulate to the hilt and apply excessive charges, and operate in a regime that intimidates advisers into too scared to look at innovation as the FCA provides very little guidance and then wants to prosecute advisers retrospectively. This is what will damage new industries such as crowdfunding which should be working closely with the advising community. Project innovate sounds like a step in the right direction, though imagine it will be run by people without an innovative bone in their body – why would you when you are paid what Martin is?

    It is hard to innovate in a suffocating environment Martin.

  6. What Mr Wheatley fails to notice . . .is advisers need to complete his many variations of administration – therby reducing the opportunities to be ” Face to Face “. As the Dictator of FCA Rules and Governance – he should be aware of this – having read in detail all the requested Gabriel reports etc., Mr Wheatley is aware ( or should be ) that it is a result of his policies and his predecessors – that destroyed so many advisers lives and livliehoods . As Heid Regulator – one might think he had a replacement for the loss of advisers EG MAS . . .the advisers ” who do not advise “. This makes an Eton Mess – an even BIGGER MESS. There is good news on the Fire Sale of UK businesses to the Americans and Chinese – business will be conducted from offshore . . . . .

  7. Morning Harry

    I think what you have written is as they “in a nut shell” and couldn’t agree more !

    I think the BLAME game has started ?

  8. Quietly resigned 11th June 2014 at 10:04 am

    Many firms are very reluctant to spend time and money developing new initiatives when there is the ever present threat of the rules all changing yet again. Many people I speak to these days are surviving on essentially a pre RDR model with the RDR rules bent around to fit. Should the regulator ever step in to prevent that, a lot of business models just collapse. Hardly worth long term investment then….unless you are SJP of course who are smarter than the entire population of Canary Wharf.

  9. “Sitting on our hands”..
    How bloody patronising can you get? Who the hell does he think he is?

    Just goes to show the huge gulf between us and them.
    Come on Nigel… we need you to sort this lot out.

  10. Rodney W Leonard 11th June 2014 at 10:24 am

    Harry spot on! My Advise to Mr Wheatley is try running a small IFA practice that way you may learn a bit about the destruction of our profession created by over Regulation and in particular what RDR has done over the past 5 years.

  11. Nick Pilkington 11th June 2014 at 10:34 am

    Could it be that the pressure to introduce automated advice has come from the banks who are unable to produce a face to face service & are looking to get back into the market to try & regain market share lost to the IFA community.
    If they can introduce automatic advice with no liability it would suit them very well.

  12. “Sitting on their hands!”

    Who was sitting on their hands when the banks were selling 110% mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them? Who was sitting on their hands when the Financial Crisis hit as a result of mortgage miss-selling? Who watched Keydata and all the others, dissolve into disarray whilst investors lost millions? Who sat on their hands whilst we had years of LIBOR rigging.?
    Who sat on their hands whilst the banks mis-sold billions of PPI over many years. Had no one at the FCA looked at the GABRIEL reports, which tell exactly where money is made and how and which type of products are being sold. Were there no alarm bells or was the FCA sitting on their hands?

    Who is sitting on their hands watching the less fortunate get fleeced by payday loan providers charging 6000%. I don’t see their illustrations highlight these costs in £’s with inflation build in, like the new pension illustration rules.

    When did the term “advice gap” materialise? Wasn’t it about the time RDR was introduced. I’m all for improving qualifications and standards and removing those sharks selling products paying 8% initial commission, but RDR generated the advice gap. Unlike the legal system with “legal aid”, where rich and poor alike can pay their solicitors through our taxes, the finance industry does not operate with “advice aid”. Now that seems like a good idea to me. Advice aid, would fill the advice gap and IFAs would get paid to look after the type of client that isn’t otherwise profitable in a world of no cross subsidy. I feel a knighthood coming on. Remember the term “Advice Aid”, you heard if from me first. The taxes I pay to the Inland Revenue would inadvertently be used in part to pay me to advise those in the advice gap.

  13. Does “automated advice” mean decision trees? Uh, oh, been there, done that and it didn’t work. Who will be held accountable when the customer fails to use the tree process properly and makes the wrong decision?

    Does the FCA have a view on simplified advice being encapsulated in Proposition, Costs, Risks and Tax, with perhaps, to round off, a brief summary of suitability? We don’t know because, as pointed out by others, the FCA prefers to talk in generic terms rather than provide an unambiguous framework, then find fault after the event.

    Then, of course, there are always the CMC’s looking for the next opportunity, allied to inconsistent verdicts from unqualified adjudicators at the FOS.

    We’re not sitting on our hands. We’re merely reluctant to wade into a swamp laced with land mines.

  14. Harry, you should go on strike !!

    Just like you do in a public sector job when you’re not happy with your working conditions and your gold plated pension just isn’t enough!

    The inconvenience caused to your clients may even drive them towards wanting to pay you more.

  15. Oh dear every time Mr Wheatley says something he just proves how equipped he is to head up the FCA. As others have said; it’s not in our interests to innovate or try and close the advice gap as anything we do is scrutinised and used against us if not today certainly tomorrow.

    Wheatley went on to say that while he was not an advocate of replacing face-to-face advice, alternative models should be considered to widen access to advice.

    Yes, we’re really seeing his true colours in that little statement. Robots are easy to supervise, really people are not.
    Unless there is a big change in the way financial services is being run there won’t be a face-to-face industry left as the costs are way out of control and as the number decrease I can only see this getting worse.
    We’ also seen what happens when you take people out of the equation – the computer says no….

  16. It’s the old story – say something often enough and it must be true. There is an advice gap caused by advisers providing advice according to the rules. So Advisers must be at fault. Simples!
    I wonder if the FCA is located at Canary Wharf so that they can stroll along the top of the Thames, and are therefore free from having to having to communicate with sub-standard people, like Advisers, who are unable to walk on water.
    A similar environment could be provided in the Shetlands – at a much cheaper cost. I doubt that there would be any deterioration in meaningful communications.

  17. @smartoneha

    I think perhaps you are not quite as smart as you’d like to think. Uncharacteristically for me I was referring to the entirety rather than specifically for myself. I have no such problems. I am happy with my client base. I have no need to innovate and I have charged fees for years, so the ‘trail’ problem doesn’t directly affect me.

    As to going on strike and likening me to a bureaucrat is the worst insult you could have levied. I didn’t say I was unhappy with my working conditions. If I don’t like something I change it or go elsewhere. That’s why for the great majority of my working life I have been my own boss. It is my choice. I hope my clients are happy and I suspect they might be; most of them have been with me for over 10 years and many for over 20. I do my best to keep my fees reasonable, but I confess in the present environment it is a struggle, but I think I am fairly confident that not many can match my (reasonable) rates.

  18. Of course if nobody signs up to give advice, and the government’s master plan fails, he’ll get blamed for heavy handed regulation.

    He wants IFAs to take the risk so he can blame them when it goes pear shaped.

    The need to reform the FCA has never been greater.

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/63482

  19. I would love to type a response but I’m currently sitting on my hands.

    Can only type so much with my toes !!!

  20. Nice photo Martin, does this prove you are not sitting on your hands !

  21. I am very interested to see exactly and I mean (very clearly and explicitly) how Martin Wheatley sees automated advice will work. How is it supposed to take everything into account in order to produce a suitable end result (product/action). If it going to be done properly it will mean clients needing to sped hours and hours in front of a computer inputting piles of information. I really can’t see very many people taking time to do that.
    How will responsibility for the automated advice work? Who is the FCA going to blame when it goes wrong and it will go wrong in terms of outcomes at some point. If we can get it wrong with our knowledge and experience from time to time (i.e. client blames us when portfolio goes south) what chance will clients have of getting it “right”.
    It so easy for him to sit there and criticise for no innovation in this area when history shows us just how expensive it can be when the regulator uses retrospection to cripple the industry. Why is he surprised at the lack of progress with this?

  22. Martin Wheatley announces advisers are ” Sitting on their Hands “. It would be more appropriate if the FCA – and their latest boss started looking to work with advisers rather than against them like a miniature . . . Michael Gove – all mouth and little content . . . . . if Mr Wheatley is so discontented he might consider putting in place some form of Proper Regulation . . .rather than Strangulation for the industry ! If Mr Wheatley wishes to assist new business – it would be more preferable if he started dealing with in in a professional manner – rather than use advisers as ” Whipping Boys ( and Girls ) “, leaving the ” whipping ” to those in Eton’s Private school for boys. . . .

  23. There is something awfully Ayn Rand about all of this isn’t there? Bureaucracy decimates Industry with grandiose plan. Bureaucracy grows frustrated by the inability of crippled Industry to make the shining future of its grandiose plan a reality. . Bureaucracy demands more effort from Industry. I know that once you’ve read Atlas Shrugged you see it in everything, but still, it’s uncanny. “How can we do what you want?” asks Industry. “I don’t know!” shrieks Bureaucracy impotently. “It’s your job to know!”

  24. @Harry..

    I was of course writing tongue in cheek and joking entirely and you misunderstood my humour totally !!! The point being, that you compared yourself to a tube driver – and they don’t voice their opinions (unlike you), they simply go on strike when they’re not convinced by the direction that their industry takes them. You and I cant do that. I suggested going on strike for the very reason that you cant, unlike your comparison to a tube worker. And clearly you are not a bureaucrat!

    I wasn’t suggesting that you weren’t charging enough or that your clients weren’t happy. I have no doubt that they are happy.

    I was linking the comparison of you earning less per hour than a tube driver, to the action that ‘they’ take.

    Nor was I likening you to a bureaucrat, that was the joke.
    Sorry, my humour was misunderstood totally
    I’d better stick to the day job.

  25. smartoneha | 11 June 2014 3:53 pm

    I actually got your joke even if Harry failed to do so and understood the point you made about going on strike as that is the only way you seem get to be noticed these days.
    Maybe Harry has had a humour bypass which is a natural result of having to put up with what we do on a weekly basis? 🙂

    Mr Wheatley would be funny apart from the fact I actually think he’s seriously blaming advisers for the mess we seem to find ourselves in. ‘Advice Gap’, more like sanity gap.

  26. It seems to me Mr Wheatley that on one hand you want IFAs to take on unlimited personal lifetime liability for their own advice through increasingly expensive PI and liability for everyone else’s via ever more expensive FSCS levies and then on the other you want us to offer an automated system to deliver low level advice for peanuts for which we still carry the same unlimited liability and which once in cyberspace could create a monster that brings a firm down and you express surprise that there are no takers!

    What is needed is regulatory innovation: A simple statement that says if you produce an automated system that does this you can never be liable and we’d all be queuing up to set it up – and I for one would be at the front!

  27. It has just cost me about 5k in time and momey to have a 4 yearbargument with the f pack over the longstop and they have just pretty much accepted my position! To attwnd Lansosn cash for questions session would have cost me a £200 fee, £30 on the train, a day out of the office and they wonde why they get ‘yes men’ i cannot express m contempt for them enough

  28. Tommy Cooper is alive at Canary Wharf. They were both comedians! Oh no one of them hasnt left us yet.

  29. @Smartoneha

    Gosh what a plonker am I. It is I who should apologise to you for being such a thicko

  30. Picking up on Simon Webster’s very valid points and the FCA should take note !!

    I know the FCA read these blogs (although my comment may not carry much weight as they are made anon) but maybe the FCA person reading this should put this view to Mr Wheatley !!!

    No we are NOT sitting on our hands !! they have been tied behind our back by the very people (you !!) and in the 20 years I have been in this industry the people who what to conduct their finances via a computer is nil !!! I know this research is based on 1 (me) but do you really expect us to invest heavily in an area with very little point ? you don’t keep milking a dry cow,
    My final point is; the FCA repeatedly INGNORE any feedback (admittedly you may throw a bone every now and again) from the industry and TSC so what really do you expect ?
    I invite you to answer these on this blog !!!
    You want us to engage with you; then you need to extend us the same courtesy please !!

  31. Imagine a Bank with lots of shareholders money – assuming that everyone is going to go technological – and the opportunities for Rogue Traders – bungs and bonuses will increase and the Directors refuse to deal with these matters as they disgorge their Due Care and Diligence down through the company – to the lowest common denominator – the call centre employee restrict his and her information – to disturb clients – with thee outrageous incompetent aggressive people. The objective is to frustrate and to refuse to deal with issues Two Companies who conduct such outrageous behaviour ar BT ( Chairman Sir Michael Rake and his Glasgow call centre James Watters ) LloydsTSB Group ( Bank of Scotland Antonio Horta Ossario ceo – George Culmer Finance Director and his call centre employee Doug Whitehouse). These practices were introduced in my experience by little Andy Horneyby – who conducted impersonations of . . .ceo . . ..during his spell at Halifax Building Society, prior to his resignation – who purchased Bank of Scotland (HBoS ) – who were purchased by Edinburgh based bank TSB ( with the help and assistance and personal interference of Gordon Brown – as Prime minister ).
    The REALITY of lies and deceit by Prime Ministers down through Companies – who has sponsored the Conservative Party – and unbalanced the great work of advisers Tied and Independent – and the New Forced Pensions – like Car Insurance ( which is now often avoided as reported on TV – with Cops in pursuit -) which is COMPULSORY . Where will it end ? and at What Cost ? Now Steve Webb wants to reduce Tax Relief to 30 % maximum . . . . .having destroyed the Pensions Industry . . .which brought so much money to the Government – and TAX to HMRC . Perhaps if this Government and its ministers started working with Employers -rather than BRUISING them and Brutalising them . . .Employers would be more willing to build a country. Unfortunately there is little or no profit in business – and with the Government taxing those who do work, and build businesses . . . . it is easy to see why companies wish to avoid paying tax in the UK – as there is no help no assistance and no common goal from Cameron. What is clear is it is MPs lining their pockets with NO THOUGHT FOR THE COUNTRY they represent . . .or the people who voted for them – and Cameron has not realised this yet ?

  32. From reading the speech, it doesnt appear to be focused on ‘advisers’ as the headline suggests, its the industry as a whole that is fearful of innovation. Technological development comes from the banks and large firms who have resource and funding to invest in it, not advisers. Breath everyone, and maybe calm down a little.

  33. Matthew, everything said in respect of advisers applies to the whole industry. It is not possible to be involved in innovative developments when there is a greater than 50% chance that the Regulator will take a negative view of the innovation, long after the innovation has hit the market. There is absolutely no indication that the FCA have any idea what happens in the real world, and therefore they can have no idea how to manage development other than to stamp on it. Its an odd bit of double standards – if it was good enough for my grandad its good enough for me, but why aren’t you titillating me with new goodies. Its totally irrational; the positive aspect of sitting on one’s hands is that you keep them warm and out of the way of teacher’s cane (bet that brings back memories).

  34. How about retrospective legislation Mr Wheatley.

    Why don’t you start to earn your keep and come up with the solutions yourself. After all on that kind of salary you must be a clever chap?

  35. Paolo Standerwick 14th June 2014 at 9:29 am

    I never thought that I would agree with Kate, but I do.

    Where do they drag up monkeys like Wheatley?

  36. I believe its time we all sat down and stopped wasting time and grey matter raking over history. Our industry got it wrong, the Regulators got it wrong and the consumer suffered. They just do not trust either us or the Regulator.

    Conflict is not going to move anything forward for us, the adviser, the Regulator or the consumer.

    Where is the peacemaker in all this? I know our professional bodies are doing their bit, lets support them and make it clear that they have our support. Let them be the voice of reason at No10, the Treasury and the Regulator. Its not a football match or a war – its a profession that could earn us a good income and provide excellent outcomes for the consumer.

    Jan Oliff

  37. Does Martin Wheatley never take responsibility for anything?

    The chief Executives of FCA and the FSA before them have correctly identified that the financial services industry could be providing better advice for people like them. They have therefore embarked on a program intended to produce a system that provides better advice for people like them. They have succeeded and the quality of advice given by the industry has improved immeasurably.

    Unfortunately providing better advice takes extra time and therefore costs extra money. As the quality of the advice has risen so has cost of that advice with the ineveitable consequence that the number of people able to afford that advice has shrunk year by year until a large portion of the population simply cannot afford it.

    There seems to be this impliit assumption that the poor have fewer financial problems than the rich. This is simply not true. Poverty makes the problems more intractable and even more important, certainly if you measure that importance in terms of human hardship rather than cash.

    This is something Martin Wheatley and his predecessors have failed to recognise and as a result it is they that have created the advice gap.

    They have castigated the financial services industry for not making clear to their clients the cost of advice. Is it not time he developed a mechanism for making clear to clients the cost of regulation? How much are investors returns reduced by regulatory costs?

    We as advisors have to treat our clients fairly. However when it is found that compensation levies have been distributed unfairly between advisors, nobody dares to suggest that maybe advisors ought to be treated fairly too.

    If MrWheatly really does want to serve investors better he should

    Engage with the industry to discuss how best to compromise on the quality of the advice given in order to ensure that advice of some sort is available to ordinary people.

    Discuss with the industry how best to shrink the weight of regulation so that the cost of regulation can be reduced and investors returns improved.

    If he could manage to do that he really would be serving the interests of investors.

    It is worth remembering that 50 years ago our industry provided services to everyone from the very richest to to the very poorest. Regulation can improve any industry but regularing more and more to solve increasingly unimportant problems will eventuially kill that industry. The trick is to know when to stop

  38. If Martin’s comments are correctly reported then they beggar belief!

    I’m not quite sure where to start?…………………………………………………..

  39. Ian McKeever starts his comments with an interesting assumption that the financial industry could provide better advice.
    This actually is an unproven assumption.
    Because there are “scandals” we often make the assumption that things could be better, yet after 5,000 or more years of civilisation things are still nowhere near perfect in any area of human behaviour. This does not imply that we should not strive to improve, but it does suggest that perfection may be beyond us. So the better question may be “Can we materially improve on the current process in a cost effective and realistic manner”?
    Given all the changes that have occurred since 1986 when regulation was introduced there is little evidence that the broad band of financial provision has materially improved. Indeed the catastrophes appear to be getting bigger and better.
    So does regulation actually lead to a better outcome, or merely a more complex and therefore more costly stasis?
    Moving a lamp post from A to B may lead to less accidents at B, but if there is an increase in accidents at A then the process is probably self defeating.
    There is the added problem that “Official Regulation” may cause its own problems. E.g. I noticed, for some reason, that a recent financial offering had the usual “Regulated etc by the FCA” statement at the bottom, prominent enough to act as a statement of reassurance. Is this the same body that saved us from the collapse of HBOS, RBS, Arch Cru etc. Some reassurance.
    Perhaps it is not possible to be better, overall, than we are. Perhaps any step forward is accompanied by a compulsory step (or half step) backward somewhere else. The tragedy is that no one appears to be considering and researching the proposition. Everything is based on the unproven and untested assumption that “we can do better”.
    Lest there be any misunderstanding I am in no way suggesting that the striving to be better should stop. Far from it. What I believe may be a step forward is to try to understand what better actually means, and what steps should be taken to unsure that improvements are real rather than illusory.
    The stats produced by the FOS do not suggest that the industry is a murky mess. I would say they demonstrate the contrary, that it is remarkably decent given that most human activity is flawed at some level.
    So instead of loads of self flagellation, however enjoyable that may be, perhaps a little sane contemplation may lead to smaller, but more stable and sustainable steps forward.
    I accept that the main weaknesses in the argument are the FCA which only appears to be able operate by grand gesture and the politicians who will chase any omnibus that sidles by.

  40. Who is pulling your string Martin?

  41. I agree with Glen.

Leave a comment