View more on these topics

Lloyds axes mass-market investment advice

/e/m/l/Lloyds_Banking_Group.jpg

Lloyds Banking Group is axing its mass-market investment advice service from November, Money Marketing can reveal.

Only consumers with £100,000 or more to invest will be offered face-to-face advice through LBG’s private banking services.

In February, the group announced it will split its advice offering between basic protection advice and a “financial planning” service. LBG says this service will no longer be offered to consumers with less than £100,000 to invest after research showed the majority of these consumers are not prepared to pay a fee for advice.

Basic protection advice will continue to be offered to all consumers.

Money Marketing understands around 1,000 advisers will be affected by the decision but Lloyds says there will be no compulsory redundancies as a result of the move.

A Lloyds Banking Group spokesman says: “An extensive review of how the market will evolve after the RDR has shown that for the majority of our customers, demand for a fee based financial planning advice service decreases when they have lower amounts to invest. As a result, from November we will not offer an investment advice service for customers who hold less than £100,000 in savings and investments. We will continue to offer protection advice.

“Existing retail investment customers with less than £100,000 of investable assets will be able to access a non-advised service through Halifax, Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB. We will give customers information and help with savings products on a non-advised basis and during 2013 we will increase the range of savings products available.

“We will continue to grow our bancassurance business. It will be a simplified business with transparent products that add value and protect our customers. Bancassurance remains part of our overall strategy to become the best bank for customers.”

Several banks have now set out their plans for delivering advice post-RDR.

Barclays decided to close its financial planning arm in January 2011 and exit the market for retail consumers. It continues to offer advice to high-net-worth clients through Barclays Wealth.

In April this year, HSBC announced it was scrapping its tied advice service. It is keeping its whole-of-market investment advice service, but it will only be offered to “Premier” clients. To qualify, clients must have savings or investments of at least £50,000 with HSBC and have their main income paid into an HSBC account, or have an individual annual income of at least £100,000 and a mortgage with HSBC of at least £300,000. HSBC is also keeping its execution-only services. It will offer advice on its own mortgage and protection products in-branch.

In June, the Royal Bank of Scotland announced it was scrapping its 118-strong IFA arm and moving to a restricted advice model as part of an overhaul of its advice service ahead of the RDR. The bank has also reduced its financial planning arm by half, resulting in the loss of 618 jobs.

Nationwide Building Society will offer an investment advice service to all customers through its single-tie agreement with Legal & General. It will use a panel of around 20 funds to construct portfolios of different risk levels offered through L&G product wrappers.

Nationwide will continue to offer a whole of market annuity service and multi-tied protection advice to all customers.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 51 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Oh the sound of dodos hitting the fan is deafening!

  2. Just to repeat this…

    “LBG says this service will no longer be offered to consumers with less than £100,000 to invest after research showed the majority of these consumers are not prepared to pay a fee for advice.”

    As for Nationwide/L&G that’s a mis-selling scandal building up nicely…

  3. Their claims teams are inundated, will the RDR reduce the burden in future?

    No

  4. Poor average man in the street has lost another advise arm because of the FSA. It is about time that those in Canary Wharf were made to realise what a pigs ear they have brought on the average man/woman seeking advise. We have the lowest levels of saving for retirement etc and it will not get better unless advise is there to get.

  5. Existing retail investment customers with less than £100,000 of investable assets will be able to access a non-advised service through Halifax, Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB. We will give customers information and help with savings products on a non-advised basis and during 2013 we will increase the range of savings products available.

    Can we please get rid of non-advised, there is no such concept in the clients eye. This is the complete opoposite to the proposals likely to be meated out by the MMR.

  6. I am no fan of bank advice in general but how on earth can this be good for the public. Our industry is being decimated and the FSA seem unstoppable. If ever there should be a call for a Parliamentary Review, this is it.

  7. At least regulation has now fully protected the average joe on the street from being badly advised through not being able to access financial advice at all.

    FSA job done!

  8. Anonymous said “Poor average man in the street has lost another advise arm because of the FSA. It is about time that those in Canary Wharf were made to realise what a pigs ear they have brought on the average man/woman seeking advise”

    Why oh why can the average man/woman seeking advice, not pay for it. They happily pay for a new car, food, utilities, council tax, legal advice, accountancy fees, why should financial planning advice be viewed as free. We do not operate charities, we trade on a need to provide a service for profit, which means the consumer pays.

    I see no difference between the cost of advice on an investment at say 3% provider commission, compared to a 3% fee charge levied at inception facilitated via providers adviser charging systems. It should in effect be more profitable for the client as the costs of advice are not built into the plan charges and thus not levied at currently high rates to provide commission.

    More clients for IFAs who are prepared to go the extra mile for their clients and provide a professional service.

  9. Another bank seemingly making a commercial decision that they can’t make a profit where clients are able to clearly identify the cost of advice.

    @Anonymous 11:46 – High Street banks have made a business out of something that has been viable for as long as clients can’t clearly identify the cost of advice. By increasing transparency, surely the end consumer outcome should be better than where they are oblivious to the costs they are paying.

    Many IFAs will step into this perceived ‘advice gap’ and therefore I hope there will be no detriment to the consumer given that many IFAs won’t have the overheads national advisers face.

  10. existing customers will flounder, assets will leave, widows will spin off or be sold as there will be no synergy between bank and insurer.

    bad for customers, bank and insurer

  11. I wonder if this will cause the least scintilla of concern at No.25 The Colonnade? I also wonder what Parliament will make of this? (If they are awake). Is this the beginning of the fallout from the RDR and the mad regulatory environment in the UK?
    Are we heading for the same fate as our car industry – decimated and moribund for 30 years and then resurgence by foreign owners?

  12. Sorry – my post at 12:00 was displayed anonymously by mistake. Am happy to put my name to it!!!!!

    Ned – I’m fully in agreement with your points (though I must say that most bank investments I end up reviewing involve commission much higher than 3%!)

  13. OMG – what a day !!

    Not only have we had the ‘commission aint so bad’ and qualifications are ‘overkill’ annoucement from Gleneagles, now we have Lloyds basically saying RDR is a crock of sh+t !!

    Even I didnt expect this just yet !!

    Expect a queue of providers beating a path to the OFT on the ‘restriction of trade’ ticket once the old balance sheet starts to collapse as a result of RDR commission ban which effectively tells them they cannot ‘market’ their products a situation unique to FSA land – correction – looks like thats started already. And all you RDR junkies – dont tell me that this is good for clients or come to that advisers – you are completely deluded !!

    £2billion yes nearly £2billion later and it could only happen in lar lar FSA land

  14. About time that Money Marketing did an RDR special that looks under the bonnet and exposes the RDR as the sham that it is.

    FSA is supposedly protecting consumers interests and has so far doen an excellent job of massivle yreducing their potential for advice of any sort.

    These total idiots would be booted out if theur were MPs instead the roll along receiving salaries four or five times that of a cabinet minister and achieve destruction. Morons.

  15. Where are Hector Sants, Margaret Cole and Peter Smith now? They don’t appear to have stayed around to enjoy the warm applause of the British public at their final solution for financial services.

    Perhaps they knew this would be a disaster.

    Perhaps they felt that they had to do something. The RDR was something so they decided to do it.

  16. Don’t panic everyone, at least the nation now has the MAS to save the day!

  17. This does not auger well for the regulatory costs for those that remain in the industry!

    It even looks like product providers will see a significant fall-off, as they look unlikely to be able to form any strategic alliances which will be worth their salt…As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for!

    The bigger players (product providers) should have not have rolled over when this was first suggested and should have stood their ground, rather than eyeing the perceived riches from what they perhaps saw as lower distribution costs for their products!

  18. Two weeks ago, many of the above commentators were lamenting RDR for pushing the public into the arms of the banks, last week they were critising the banks for giving bad advice, this week the banks are innoccent bystanders in evil FSA led conspiracy. The many, many faces of the people on these boards is staggering.

  19. @Adam Groven (non FSA regulated)

    It’s like this, Adam. The FSA is distinguishing itself by destroying the infrastructure of the industry. Bank advice has proven to be relatively bad but many, many consumers continue to trust them and will not look beyond their doors when they close to low net worth business.

    Whilst the bank advice is frequently unsound it does not mean that it should be removed – what we want is for it to be cleaned up and offered to the public.

    WOM advisers often gain clients who progress to them having started with bancassurer advice.

    In its rush to be seen as cleansing the industry the FSA is dismantling the very support that consumers require.

    In years to come we’ll look back at this period and shake our heads saying, “how did we ever let this happen”?

  20. So we all seem to be up in arms about RDR again because a bank that is responsible for a large amount of miss selling decides to give up giving financial advice.

    As a professional adviser that has client interest at heart I don’t see a problem with this as in reality the death of Bank Assurance in its present incarnation is welcome and frankly well overdue.

    I would be happy to see banks go back to their traditional roles of deposit based savings and lending and leaving financial advice to a highly trained professional without huge sales targets.

    For those financial advisers who think that RDR is the end of the world, I would ask one simple question, how do you think solicitors and accountants make a living? answer: fees.

  21. The last thing that I forgot to mention is that I hope the regulator clamps down on banks offering simplified products with no advice. The so called “non advice service” offered by Nationwide and Legal and General is a good example of this.

  22. @Adam Grove
    I see no discrepancy here.

    1. IFA’s are worried that the RDR will push clients into the arms of the banks. For some time there was concern that banks would use profits in one part of their business – let’s call it the insurance company – to balance losses elsewhere. This would allow business to carry on as usual and I cannot understand why they haven’t done this. Nothing says that you cannot give away your advice.

    2. Bank advice is often poor – I don’t think we need to discuss this further.

    3. The discussion today is not about the banks but about the accuracy of the predictions made about RDR removing advice for all but the very rich. This is criticism of the FSA not support for the banks. RDR will be a disaster for IFA’s, banks, insurance companies and investment companies. IFA’s appear to be the only group that understood this from the outset – the others are just catching on now when it’s far to late. If only they had used their brains a little earlier….

    I hope that’s clear Adam – please try to keep up.

  23. @Steve, the product providers did not get what they wished for out of RDR and I have been on these boards for years saying RDR will amongst other things cause mass redundancies and business closures from advisers banks and product providers. All the research showed that customers generally won’t pay for advice. Our company ran high street pilot sales on an RDR basis and tranactions close to zero.

  24. Adam

    All this illustrates is not whether bank advice is good or bad – but simply the penny has finally dropped (in this case with a bank who are better placed than most to exploit it) RDR will not work for the mass market.

    Couple that with the earlier annoucement from Gleneagles and we see the bigger picture.

    So the reality is after £2 billion wasted you cannot re-invent the wheel – and more and more are waking up to that reality – 2013 will be a watershed IMO – and as I said earlier the OFT may well be very busy !!!

  25. More front line staff dispatched as canon fodder.

    Poor for the average customer in the street.

  26. oh dear orh dear what a tangled web we weave 27th September 2012 at 2:43 pm

    @ Ned Taylor. I hear what you are saying but try this for an exercise. Go to a provider who can currently produce RDR ready illustrations and do the following. £100,000 bond with no initial charge no withwdrawls. 3% initial plus 0.5% trail. Currently the provider will give enhanced allocation on the bond based on the size PLUS rebate into it an additional 1.5% of commission give up. Have a look at the illustration figure at the 10 year point on the mid growth rate. Then compare it to the holy grail that is the RDR version and check out the difference in fund values. Once you do that you will see why a client shouldnt have to pay a fee via product. This is a disgrace but hey at least the client will know what they are paying for….. Lower returns. Well done to the FSA and all you other RDR supporters who say adviser charging or fees are so much better. Under current situation charging fees is way better but not from Jan 1st 2013

  27. Will “None advised” sales be “commission only” because they can’t charge a fee because they have not given any advice?

  28. What a day indeed !!

    just to add to everything else detailed today just read elsewhere – EU REJECT commission ban !!

    Hans Christian Andersen couldn’t write this !!!

    RDR – its all going every so well isnt it ?

  29. To everyone contributing and reading these blogs, what are we going to do about it? I run an in-house IFA/Solicitor practice, and I am a partner in this business, well placed you may say to adopt the principles and rules of RDR?

    You be wrong to think that, because the CONSUMER doesn’t want it!! We have our level 4 and above qualifications, we have our new business proposition out to our clients we are ready to go BUT, and as obviously evident across Europe, the public want and in some cases NEED the commission option!!! FACT.

    And as some other commentators have stated, the RDR lovers are completely deluded and should get off their soap boxes if any of them think this is the best option for the public and the industry, stop looking down your noses and realise that the industry is about to implode!!

    Look at life offices, L&G for example have this week reduced their relationship managers from 38, nationaly to 8, and all other offices are doing the same.

    Boutique fund managers, Platform providers and DFM’s are increasing in numbers, but who are their audiences, who are willing to pay the extra charges for services they don’t need? Ultimately they will be short lived when the regulator asks the IFA WHY??

    I am starting to be scared and scratching my head in wonder at what a mess this all I, and as for the majority of the public who have no idea what is about to happen, God knows!

  30. I agree with those who smell the whiff of hypocrisy on these boards.

    For years IFAs have slagged off the banks – especially Lloyds – for their bad sales processes and outcomes. Now Lloyds have finally admitted their customers won’t agree to the advice charges next year (not at the previous levels anyway, which were so well hidden) they have decided to quit the mass market.

    Fair enough. That’s thousand of less complaints coming the way of the FOS with Lloyds out the game. No advice is better than bad advice. We are all better off without Lloyds bank “advice”.

  31. I fear all this is fast becoming a battle of wills !!
    On one side you have a belligerent regulator on the other, gorilla cells fighting to save their businesses,
    And all you are left with is a massive waste of lives all of which will come from one side.

    I would love to know how many jobs have gone over the past 2 years I think its gone past the 3rd that Hector thought it would be worth to get RDR through. And still it seems funny the pro RDR feel 2013 will see an end to all the problems

  32. The only people to benefit in my opinion from RDR is the CII how much money has this made for them??!

    Where will Mrs Miggins now go to to get the life cover she needs for her mortgage? She will do it on line and as i have seen many times, make a complete hash of it wrong cover or not enough cover!!

    I can not bake cakes so i do not, I go to Greggs!

    How is J Public going to get the protection for income, mortgages and loans etc that they need? answer as above or they simply won’t!!

  33. Talk about vested interests! I would like to see some of the actual surveys that some of the people talk about in these forums afterall you can almost get any result you want depending on how you frame the question.

    Will the consumers pay for advice?

    The answer is actually yes if the firms in question properly get across their actual proposition. After all are we really saying that clients are not willing to hire solicitors when they need to do legal work or accountants when they need to do end of year accounts?

    Commission also still exists but instead of calling it commission we call it Adviser Fees and clearly state what that means to the consumer and maybe that’s what some people on here are truly worried about as I suspect some people, and I include IFA’s and Bank staff, have not been disclosing their commission fully.

    Instead of continually griping about RDR maybe the industry should have used the last four years to come up with useful changes rather than having to be dragged to this stage kicking and screaming. The industry only has itself to blame as we haven’t exactly covered ourselves in glory.

  34. @Peter Herd

    I agree with you in the main – but people use solicitors and accountants only when they absolutely have to. We are working a successful fee model so it is possible but we are also a specialist firm so we offer advice that cannot be obtained elsewhere or online.

    I remember that on one of the other forums you described the RDR as the Tesco moment for IFA’s. I agree, but not in the way that you intended.

    Most investment and pension business will commoditise over the next few years with simple (not necessarily cheap) products sold online without advice. It will go the way of life, house and car insurance.

    It may be sold online but not much of it will be bought meaning a fall in business for providers and a fall in investment in the UK economy.

    Sadly this is the bread and butter business for most IFA’s (and banks) and this is why they will fail.

    The RDR will make thousands redundant and will worsen the offering for most consumers. Whilst I know my business will do rather well out of it, I feel desperately sorry that this stupid piece of unwanted over regulation has been allowed to proceed.

  35. You just don’t get it do you !
    The whole idea is to put enough obstacles in people’s way to stop people saving and getting good tax planning advice and encourage the perception that savings a waste of time so they start spending. They”ve just started it with NS&I products as well. Sound management of the situation would be far too much like hard work and would take too long and there’s not much time left before the numbers/arguments from both sides are published in the lead up to the next election.

  36. @ Ned Taylor

    Absolutely bang on! Joe Public has always paid for advice through higher product/fund charges. So, what’s the difference between Joe getting 97% allocation or paying a higher AMC for the term of the investment, to writing his adviser a cheque for 3% of the initial investment and paying a reasonable trail charge… except if he now pays a trail charge the adviser actually has to do something worthwhile for it!

    So… advisers must show clients their service is good value versus higher product/fund charges. If you can’t do this, maybe you’ve been taking too much commission in the past?

  37. So given that the existing investment ‘advisers’ will be offered new roles, what exactly will they be?

    A new suite of products is being designed for those with less than £100K, is it stretching the imagination too far to suggest that there may be a connection between the new roles for the former ‘advisers’ and the new suite of products? Should the FSA take an interest in this as an emerging risk?

    Or, perhaps both, will there finally be an admission that there is a huge difference between advice and sales which the RDR’s first draft mooted but was then for some non-disclosed reason quickly dropped.

    It’s never too late to admit that one doesn’t have all the answers!

  38. @ Peter Herd

    All of this talk about the RDR not changing anything is tosh. It has already removed 20% of the 2008 adviser numbers. It will change the mindset of consumers (potential clients) who will be less willing to engage because they see a potential fee coming their way.

    It will also make it far more difficult to prospect for new clients.

    Go back 20 years or more and most advisers spent a fair amount of time looking for new clients because, unlike today, we knew that consumers do not willingly approach advisers. We knew that approaching them and engaging in a sensible conversation turned many into clients.

    I know many may argue that nothing has changed …but it has. The public perception has changed and, let’s not forget, it’s official, the FSA has told us that perception is everything, right?

  39. Fed up of reading negative comments, about miss selling in banks. Having worked as an IFA and a Bancassurance Adviser I know that compliance and regulation is much higher in banks. IFA’s go for the product paying the highest commission.

  40. Well done Soren for pointing out the obvious to Peter Herd. Solicitors and accountants are transactional and only used when they are needed, that is when something has got to be done because HMRC or legislation dictates that it must happen.

    Fees are naturally charged and are reluctantly paid. But notice the rise of the no win no fee culture – the solicitors equivalent of commission hungry salesmen – and the public still go for it.

    The distasteful element of the RDR is the removal of choice to the public. I have always offered a choice between fees and commission and after explaining both the majority of my clients like the commission route because I cap the level of commission and adhere to that cap.

    I am currently undertaking a complaint against Lloyds TSB private banking on behalf of a client mainly to attempt to recover £86k of charges she has incurred in 8 years on a £200k investment. Great work if you can get it!!

    The redundancies concern me, the lack of choice for the public irritates me, the unforseen outcomes scare me (we get a new one every week), but what saddens me is our regulators complete lack of understanding of the industry that they regulate and the mind set of the public/clients that use an IFA.

    We are afterall salesmen and saleswomen – we sell trust, relationships, our own credibility and continuity and consistency of advice. I do rather fear the last of those will go for alot of people.

  41. @Ted. I don’t know what company you have worked among. I would rather an IFA than sales driven bank assurer with a narrow knowledge and limited range of investments.I have never come across IFAs (in several organizations) picking on the basis of the highest commission,. Its the rubbish I used to hear other tied guys saying before I became an IFA to defend their inadequacies. Admittedly I have seen a bias when everything else is judged to be equal for the client though and I chose to go fee based many years ago to avoid ANY conflict of interest. Clearly RDR delivers this and I havn’t seen a problem (and no, not all my clients are HNW) It’s the way you explain it. If they are not willing to pay a cost now, they woudln’t under commission either unless they were misled.
    1
    @[oh dear orh dear what a tangled web we weave]
    If the illustrations for rebated commission and fees look different on any non-pension investment, I simply don’t believe them. £x out is £x out however it’s taken unless its a ponzi scheme. The impact on bonds (I suspect unintended) is that ongoing adviser remuneration will be counted as a withdrawal, but lets fact it bonds have been somewhat overworked in many situations where UT/OEICS etc. would have been more appropriate.

  42. Working for one of the first banks to show it’s hand earlier this year and withdraw from the tied advice market I find it very interesting reading IFA’s comments about the qulaity of the bank advisers. They were falling over themselves to employ the one’s we made redundant to replace the IFA’s who decided they couldn’t hack the post RDR world and were leaving/retiring etc. Many because they weren’t prepared to gain the additional qualifications needed. The good old banks had already paid for their advisers to gain these qualifications and they are used to working in a much more tightly regulated world. Many of the ex-bank advisers wouldn’t go and work for the IFAs once they realised that ‘rebroking’ life cover wasn’t really an honest living

  43. Peter Davies @ Create Wealth Management 28th September 2012 at 4:24 pm

    GREAT NEWS – all I hope now is that their Private Banking arm closes down!

  44. To Soren Lorenson, Alan Lakey and Darren

    I really do think that we in the adviser community need a reality check, are we really thinking that everybody in the general population is going to do everything online and spend many hours researching complex world of financial planning. If you really believe this you should leave because obviously you never could do any business.

    It’s a bit like the shoe salesman goes to Africa at the turn of the 19th century and sees everybody walking around barefoot and thinking that I cannot do any business here as nobody wear shoes. Instead he should be looking at every potential barefooted individual as a customer who needs his product.

    The same is true in financial services all of the adult population in the UK needs financial advice it is just how we package that product and show are worth to the consumer. What we’re saying at present to the consumer is that we don’t value our own service we don’t think you’re going to pay for it.

    Well you mail think I’m deluded but I know I provide an excellent service to my consumers and have had many normal individuals not multimillionaires paying the fee for my service and yes they also come back for repeat business and refer me onto their friends and family.

    My advice to you would be to concentrate your efforts on how you can benefit your consumers and market these benefits, I think you may be surprised in the outcome.

  45. ken170647 youtube 28th September 2012 at 4:47 pm

    I read comments such as once the cost of advice is made clear blah blah. Commission does NOT represent the cost of advice. Commission INCLUDES product providers’ marketing and distribution costs, work the IFA carries out on behalf of the product provider. The reason why RDR will be a catastrophic failure is because this simple fact has not been realised…

  46. 12 weeks ago I left LBG as a regulated area manager, working in Halifax. Happy to put my name to this post.

    This is decision really is no shock to anyone inside the bank. What people are forgetting is how far removed the public had/have become with the banks. Investment advice had already dropped dramatically from the levels 3/4 years ago. People stopped trusting the banks financial advisers with 50/60k of their savings along while ago. This change of buying behaviour from the public had nothing to do with RDR.

    The levels of turnover were already dropping to critical levels, it was not sustainable. RDR has just brought forward the timescales to make the business decision to pull the plug, it would have come anyway without RDR.

    Lloyds (and specifically Halifax) have for the last 3 years changed their focus to selling high priced protection products to drive up profitability…….the scandal is that these very high priced protection plans will remain being sold post RDR. The targets of “sell 5 plans a week” will also stay.

    Not good, not in the spirit of ”RDR” either. The perfect “lose/lose” for regulator and consumer.

  47. A knock on affect of the 1000 advisors going is Scottish widows workers are to be paid off due to this change in Edinburgh. They deal with this work for LLoyds. Scandalous.

  48. ‘Non Advice’ products. There is no such thing.

    Unless you are a qualified adviser, fund manager everybody needs advice. ‘Non Advice’ in the room with some memeber of staff with a target. Forget it !
    The banks must not be allowed to offer ‘non advice’.

  49. My understanding of commission is that it is better to pay for guaranteed business than to employ your own sales staff and pay them regardless of whether they sell your product or not. Granted, the system is open to abuse but then what system isn’t? Human nature will always find ways to abuse any system. Product providers now need to find a way to persuade people to take their products over others. I doubt they will be relying on advisors generating enough business for them. I suspect a significant proportion of the money reserved for commission will be spent on direct marketing and encouraging people to come to them directly, free workshops for people etc. Any additional costs may well be passed onto the consumer. They’re just not going to sit back and wait for the business to come to them. If this happens, people may well begin to question the need to pay for advice and if you’re small firm you won’t be able to compete against the tide. Larger firms may need to work harder or spend more money on their own marketing, which in turn will push up fees. Regardless, I can’t see how the changes are going to be good for the masses.

  50. Why would the Fsa stop this when it could make Joe public better off in the medium to long term when lloyds tsb are still having credit card and added value account days and offering prizes for the most credit cards sold and managers deciding in the morning what products they pledge their teams will sell that day there is a difference between professional advice and indiscriminate sell at all cost mentalities and the Fsa seems to be cracking down on the wrong one perhaps because this is the soft option as that is what they always seem to take

  51. international financial advisers 7th March 2013 at 6:04 pm

    Hello I wish to to share a comment here concerning you to definitely be able to inform you just how much i personally Loved this particular study. I have to elope in order to aTurkey Day time Supper but desired to leave ya an easy comment. We preserved you Same goes with be returning subsequent function to read more of yer quality articles. Keep up the quality work.

    https://www.devere-group.com

Leave a comment