Bond Fund Question

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.

Bond Fund Question

Postby AAA » Tue May 21, 2013 10:02 pm

In comparing VBTLX (Total Bond) and VFSTX (Short-Term Investment Grade), I was surprised to see that the yields are 1.56% and 1.01% at this time. The average durations are 5.3 and 2.3 years. I believe I've seen here some consensus against long-term bond funds since the extra yield was not justified by the higher risk due to the longer duration. Using that same reasoning, and given the small yield advantage of VBTLX at this time, would it make sense to move funds from VBTLX to VFSTX?

Thanks.
AAA
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:56 am

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby grabiner » Tue May 21, 2013 10:22 pm

AAA wrote:In comparing VBTLX (Total Bond) and VFSTX (Short-Term Investment Grade), I was surprised to see that the yields are 1.56% and 1.01% at this time. The average durations are 5.3 and 2.3 years. I believe I've seen here some consensus against long-term bond funds since the extra yield was not justified by the higher risk due to the longer duration. Using that same reasoning, and given the small yield advantage of VBTLX at this time, would it make sense to move funds from VBTLX to VFSTX?


These two funds are not comparable; Short-Term Investment-Grade is almost all corporate, while Total Bond Market has a lot of Treasury bonds. The fair comparison is Intermdiate-Term Investment-Grade at 2.03% versus Short-Term Investment-Grade at 1.01%, or Total Bond Market Index Admiral shares at 1.56% versus Short-Term Bond Index Admiral Shares at 0.48%. Thus the yield premium is about 1%.
David Grabiner
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
 
Posts: 12769
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:58 am
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby FinancialDave » Tue May 21, 2013 11:37 pm

AAA wrote:In comparing VBTLX (Total Bond) and VFSTX (Short-Term Investment Grade), I was surprised to see that the yields are 1.56% and 1.01% at this time. The average durations are 5.3 and 2.3 years. I believe I've seen here some consensus against long-term bond funds since the extra yield was not justified by the higher risk due to the longer duration. Using that same reasoning, and given the small yield advantage of VBTLX at this time, would it make sense to move funds from VBTLX to VFSTX?

Thanks.


It makes absolutely no sense to me putting money in a bond fund earning 1%, since you can get more in a strict money market type account, with essentially no principal risk. If you have over $50k to invest, you can get 1.1% in a GE interest plus account. I have used them for many years.

fd
I love simulated data. It turns the impossible into the possible!
FinancialDave
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby jsl11 » Wed May 22, 2013 1:32 am

FinancialDave wrote:If you have over $50k to invest, you can get 1.1% in a GE interest plus account. I have used them for many years.
These GE accounts are not FDIC insured. Personally, I would rather depend on the solvency of FDIC rather than the solvency of GE. The difference in yield is not all the much. I would suggest a high yield savings account or CD instead.
Jeff
jsl11
 
Posts: 3017
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby Eureka » Wed May 22, 2013 2:12 am

FinancialDave wrote: It makes absolutely no sense to me putting money in a bond fund earning 1%, since you can get more in a strict money market type account, with essentially no principal risk.


I haven't seen an FDIC-insured money-market account yielding 1 percent for some time. Mine is down to 0.17 percent. Even Ally Bank is offering only 0.84 percent today.
Eureka
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:24 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby FinancialDave » Wed May 22, 2013 11:10 am

Eureka wrote:
FinancialDave wrote: It makes absolutely no sense to me putting money in a bond fund earning 1%, since you can get more in a strict money market type account, with essentially no principal risk.


I haven't seen an FDIC-insured money-market account yielding 1 percent for some time. Mine is down to 0.17 percent. Even Ally Bank is offering only 0.84 percent today.


Not talking about FDIC, just something with much better security than a bond fund. I believe it is backed by corporate notes, but in the 20+ years I have been using it, the principal has always stayed constant and the rates have always been as high or higher than any banks were paying.

The OP was about Bond Fund options, not wanting to go into FDIC. Sure between .84% and 1.1% not that much money is going to be made, but for the bulk of your retirement funds, very few really need an FDIC risk level. This is something reserved for your emergency fund (though I use this account for my emergency fund too) If some day they think they do, it is only one electronic transfer away, almost no chance of any principal being lost. NOT the case in any kind of bond funds.

fd
I love simulated data. It turns the impossible into the possible!
FinancialDave
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby Scooter57 » Wed May 22, 2013 11:29 am

Patience!

Rates are rising again and it is quite possible we'll see better CD and money market rates over the next few months. With rates as low as they are, there's no need to obsess about missing out on 1 month's worth of interest. After taxes we are talking maybe $.60-.75 per thousand invested.
Scooter57
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:20 am

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby gerrym51 » Wed May 22, 2013 11:40 am

jsl11 wrote:
FinancialDave wrote:If you have over $50k to invest, you can get 1.1% in a GE interest plus account. I have used them for many years.
These GE accounts are not FDIC insured. Personally, I would rather depend on the solvency of FDIC rather than the solvency of GE. The difference in yield is not all the much. I would suggest a high yield savings account or CD instead.
Jeff



there is GE and GE BANK registered in utah. GE BANK is fdic insured
gerrym51
 
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby jsl11 » Wed May 22, 2013 1:50 pm

gerrym51 wrote:
jsl11 wrote:
FinancialDave wrote:If you have over $50k to invest, you can get 1.1% in a GE interest plus account. I have used them for many years.
These GE accounts are not FDIC insured. Personally, I would rather depend on the solvency of FDIC rather than the solvency of GE. The difference in yield is not all the much. I would suggest a high yield savings account or CD instead.
Jeff



there is GE and GE BANK registered in utah. GE BANK is fdic insured

GE's web site specifically states that the Interest Plus accounts are not FDIC insured. Therefore, these accounts are not accounts in GE Bank.
Jeff
jsl11
 
Posts: 3017
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby abuss368 » Wed May 22, 2013 1:52 pm

These two funds are different and hard to compare.

Stay with the simplicity and all market approach of the Total Bond Market fund.

In fact, it is Mr. Bogle's favorite bond fund.

Best.
John C. Bogle: "You simply do not need to put your money into 8 different mutual funds!"

Disclosure: Three Fund Portfolio + REITs
User avatar
abuss368
 
Posts: 6164
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: At the Beach

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby gerrym51 » Wed May 22, 2013 1:59 pm

jsl11 wrote:
gerrym51 wrote:
jsl11 wrote:
FinancialDave wrote:If you have over $50k to invest, you can get 1.1% in a GE interest plus account. I have used them for many years.
These GE accounts are not FDIC insured. Personally, I would rather depend on the solvency of FDIC rather than the solvency of GE. The difference in yield is not all the much. I would suggest a high yield savings account or CD instead.
Jeff



there is GE and GE BANK registered in utah. GE BANK is fdic insured

GE's web site specifically states that the Interest Plus accounts are not FDIC insured. Therefore, these accounts are not accounts in GE Bank.
Jeff



i'm talking about this https://banking.gecrb.com/savings-cds/index.html
gerrym51
 
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby jsl11 » Wed May 22, 2013 2:10 pm

gerrym51 wrote:
jsl11 wrote:
gerrym51 wrote:
jsl11 wrote:
FinancialDave wrote:If you have over $50k to invest, you can get 1.1% in a GE interest plus account. I have used them for many years.
These GE accounts are not FDIC insured. Personally, I would rather depend on the solvency of FDIC rather than the solvency of GE. The difference in yield is not all the much. I would suggest a high yield savings account or CD instead.
Jeff



there is GE and GE BANK registered in utah. GE BANK is fdic insured

GE's web site specifically states that the Interest Plus accounts are not FDIC insured. Therefore, these accounts are not accounts in GE Bank.
Jeff



i'm talking about this https://banking.gecrb.com/savings-cds/index.html

And I was responding to FinancialDave who was talking about this http://www.gecapitalinvestdirect.com/le ... notes.html
jsl11
 
Posts: 3017
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby gerrym51 » Wed May 22, 2013 2:15 pm

I tried to quote but it said i could not embed more then 5 thins. i read your link. they are 2 different things. are the note a good deal though? :mrgreen:
gerrym51
 
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby jsl11 » Wed May 22, 2013 2:21 pm

gerrym51 wrote:I tried to quote but it said i could not embed more then 5 thins. i read your link. they are 2 different things. are the note a good deal though? :mrgreen:

I'm not qualified to determine if they are "a good deal". However, the rate is only a little more than the better FDIC savings accounts. Personally, I do not lend money to individual corporations that are not federally insured. The extra risk is not worth it to me.
Jeff
jsl11
 
Posts: 3017
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby aquifer » Wed May 22, 2013 2:30 pm

Eureka wrote:
FinancialDave wrote: It makes absolutely no sense to me putting money in a bond fund earning 1%, since you can get more in a strict money market type account, with essentially no principal risk.


I haven't seen an FDIC-insured money-market account yielding 1 percent for some time. Mine is down to 0.17 percent. Even Ally Bank is offering only 0.84 percent today.


Barclays online savings account is at .90%, FDIC insured. Up until a week or so ago it had been at 1.0%. You don't get any frills with the Barclay account but it's a nice place for emergency funds. It's not a money market account so there's no check writing like a MM might offer.
aquifer
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:01 am

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby AAA » Wed May 22, 2013 5:06 pm

I am the OP for this thread. I should have specified that the different nature of the two funds is not of any consequence to me - I actually own both - and for the purposes of this question I am focusing just on the durations - 5.3 and 2.3 years - and the yields - 1.56% and 1.01%. VBTLX is in a Roth IRA, and I frankly don't want to bother moving the funds to another custodian, such as some of the banks suggested here.

I was simply wondering, given the small yield advantage of the longer-duration fund, whether it might be prudent to move to the shorter duration fund. As a hypothetical, what if the yields become substantially equal? Would it be a no-brainer then?
AAA
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:56 am

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby Artsdoctor » Wed May 22, 2013 6:23 pm

AAA,

You are comparing mostly governmental bonds with mostly corporate bonds so you really are talking apples and oranges.

First, you'll need to ask yourself what you want out of the fixed income portion of your portfolio. Do you want liquidity? Do you want stability? Do you want income? Are you in the early accumulation phase, late accumulation phase, retirement?

You will need to decide what sort of average maturity you want on the fixed income side of your portfolio. You can use duration as an extremely rough estimate of volatility but bear in mind that it is a very rough estimate.

Then, you'll need to decide what sort of breakdown you want on the fixed income side: governmentals, corporates, munis, TIPS; CDs, stable value funds; internationals; high-yield.

Once you've done that, you can decide which funds you'll ultimately want to purchase.

You'll get a lot of opinions here, especially nowadays, when it comes to fixed income. Just remember that one person's needs might not be another's.

Artsdoctor
User avatar
Artsdoctor
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby grabiner » Wed May 22, 2013 8:42 pm

AAA wrote:I am the OP for this thread. I should have specified that the different nature of the two funds is not of any consequence to me - I actually own both - and for the purposes of this question I am focusing just on the durations - 5.3 and 2.3 years - and the yields - 1.56% and 1.01%. VBTLX is in a Roth IRA, and I frankly don't want to bother moving the funds to another custodian, such as some of the banks suggested here.

I was simply wondering, given the small yield advantage of the longer-duration fund, whether it might be prudent to move to the shorter duration fund. As a hypothetical, what if the yields become substantially equal? Would it be a no-brainer then?


The problem with this question is that the yield difference is only half as much as the duration effect. If you replace your Total Bond Market Index with equal amounts of Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Investment-Grade, you will decrease your interest-rate risk and lose nothing in yield. But this isn't a free lunch; if you look at the 2008 performance of Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Investment-Grade, you will see how much risk of a different type you would be taking.

If the yields become substantially equal, this implies that the risk premium for corporate bonds over Treasury bonds has increased even further, as it did during the 2008 crash; would you have really wanted to go all-corporate at that time?
David Grabiner
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
 
Posts: 12769
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:58 am
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby AAA » Thu May 23, 2013 7:46 pm

> If the yields become substantially equal, this implies that the risk premium for corporate bonds over Treasury bonds has increased even further, as it did during the 2008 crash; would you have really wanted to go all-corporate at that time?

Thanks for that perspective. I'll re-think things.
AAA
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:56 am

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby Artsdoctor » Thu May 23, 2013 8:56 pm

AAA,

The GOOD thing about interest rates being so low is that it has forced people to examine the fixed income part of their portfolios. For too many years, many concentrated on the equity side of things and spent very little time learning about fixed income. Granted, fixed income would not be expected to have the volatility of stocks so it would appear that focusing your efforts of stock allocation would be where the pay-off is. But not learning about fixed income can result in disaster as people reach for yield without considering anything else.

With real rates being about zero (or below), everyone is understandably interested in protection from inflation as well as income. For you, there's no reason why you can't use corporates AND treasuries to have a balanced fixed income portfolio. There's nothing wrong with using two (or more) funds: you can use corporates for a bit more income and you can use (short-term) treasuries for dry powder in order to purchase equities when they inevitably plummet. Because treasury rates are SO low, they are nearly in money market territory (hence Buffett's recommendation to hold "cash") but the same rules apply regardless of interest rates. Short-term or even intermediate-term corporates can be used but you need to balance that with treasuries somehow because they will perform very differently during a crisis.

Hope this helps.

Artsdoctor
User avatar
Artsdoctor
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby rerod » Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:24 am

Artsdoctor wrote:AAA,
The GOOD thing about interest rates being so low is that it has forced people to examine the fixed income part of their portfolios. For too many years, many concentrated on the equity side of things and spent very little time learning about fixed income. Granted, fixed income would not be expected to have the volatility of stocks so it would appear that focusing your efforts of stock allocation would be where the pay-off is. But not learning about fixed income can result in disaster as people reach for yield without considering anything else.

Hope this helps.

Artsdoctor


It is a good thing unless you learn the hard way. Disaster? For me, fixed income is the most difficult to understand aside from tax's and I picked to wrong time to learn.

Artsdoctor wrote:AAA,
you can use (short-term) treasuries for dry powder in order to purchase equities when they inevitably plummet. Because treasury rates are SO low, they are nearly in money market territory (hence Buffett's recommendation to hold "cash") but the same rules apply regardless of interest rates. Short-term or even intermediate-term corporates can be used but you need to balance that with treasuries somehow because they will perform very differently during a crisis.

Hope this helps.

Artsdoctor


I hope your right Doctor.. Sorry for just cutting in line with this first post, but I don't have a whole day to accurately post/ask for portfolio advice.
What I'm loosing sleep about is my large VBTLX purchase late last year. I had a large lump of cash deposited in a young taxable inheritance account and took vanguards advice since I had cold feet. 30% stocks 70% bonds. Well I was wrong, stocks took off and I learned the hard way how volatile VBTLX can become. Lost 10k. :? I can handle swings in my VTIAX and VTSAX.. But I would have been much better off leaving my cash, in cash last fall.
I was anticipating a correction and bond prices rising. Anyone care to predict which direction VBTLX is heading now? I see it continues to slide even on bad stock days. :oops:
rerod
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 10:05 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby Artsdoctor » Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:47 pm

Rerod,

Yes, in a rising rate environment, Total Bond Index may indeed lose money. The reason Vanguard probably recommended it is because they assumed you were going to hold it for a long time. They SHOULD have asked you what you needed the fund for (stability, income, short-term, long-term etc.).

When you buy a bond or bond fund, you can look at "duration." Duration is a complex calculation that can give you an idea of how volatile a bond or fund might be; the longer the duration, the more volatile the investment. With Total Bond fund, the duration is about 5 years; a very, very crude measurement basically allows you to say that if interest rates increase 1%, the NAV (principle) will drop 5%. The increase in interest rates will allow the reinvested dividends to be re-invested at a higher rate. At 5 years, you should "break even" or, as some say, there will be a point of indifference at 5 years.

In general, you should not buy a bond or fund with a duration that is longer than the time frame in which you will need your money. This is why I offered SHORT-TERM treasuries for "dry powder" since you cannot count on intermediate-term investments to suit your needs if you need that money right now.

This is a rough estimate and should not be construed as a guarantee. Furthermore, some on this board continue to refer back over the past decade or even more to insist that it would be rare for Total Bond Index to lose money. Using past returns to predict future returns is dangerous. There has been what is widely quoted as a "30-year bull market for bonds" so I would really urge you to avoid looking at past returns.

Going forward, you have to ask yourself if you're going to need that money now, or if you will not need that money for several years. If you have found that you've invested in something that was totally inappropriate, you'll need to consider taking some of the money back if it is for relatively immediate needs.

I hope this helps a bit.

Artsdoctor
Last edited by Artsdoctor on Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Artsdoctor
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby ogd » Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:25 pm

rerod wrote:I hope your right Doctor.. Sorry for just cutting in line with this first post, but I don't have a whole day to accurately post/ask for portfolio advice.
What I'm loosing sleep about is my large VBTLX purchase late last year. I had a large lump of cash deposited in a young taxable inheritance account and took vanguards advice since I had cold feet. 30% stocks 70% bonds. Well I was wrong, stocks took off and I learned the hard way how volatile VBTLX can become. Lost 10k. :? I can handle swings in my VTIAX and VTSAX.. But I would have been much better off leaving my cash, in cash last fall.
I was anticipating a correction and bond prices rising. Anyone care to predict which direction VBTLX is heading now? I see it continues to slide even on bad stock days. :oops:


rerod: let's put the slide / volatility / what have you of VBTLX in perspective. Morningstar says, total return of VBTLX from 12/15/2012 (one guess for "late last year") thru yesterday is -1.04%. If I play around with a start date "last fall" it can be as low as -1.24%. By bond standads, that pretty bad, but ... TSM (total stock market) dropped 1.16% today, and it wasn't a particularly bad day. If you want to know what a more typical 3-month hiccup for stocks looks like, try Q3 2011 when the market dropped a cool 15% for no particular reason. No Lehman Brothers, no mortgage crisis, just a shift in animal spirits. As for an atypical bear market like 2008-2009, I don't need to tell you what that looks like.

So yeah, -1.24% for bonds during what you might call Fast Times at Bond Market High, versus -15% for stocks because of the summer blues. This is what the Vanguard advisor promised you -- low volatility. Pretty darn low, I'd say.

And speaking of stocks -- weren't you more than compensated from the equity side for this drop?
User avatar
ogd
 
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:43 am

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby larmewar » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:08 pm

Put simply, it is a fairly big trade-off between interest rate risk (rates up, bond prices down) and credit risk for a some extra yield.

Lar
larmewar
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:45 pm

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby john94549 » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:28 pm

We can all agree it is tough, indeed, to approximate a real return in "safe" FI these days. Not to say it can't be done, if one is willing to snoop around and jump through a few hoops. For example, various Reward Checking accounts offer real returns, are FDIC or NCUA insured, and are available nationally and/or locally. Absurdly low balance caps, weird use of plastic required, but it can be done. A well-crafted CD ladder might yield better than VFSTX, with no risk to either principal or yield.

However, these days, it is best to nibble around the edges, fight for each bps, then relax. Rates will do what rates will do, which is revert to the mean. My guess is, within five years, we'll be back to business as usual. Maybe not 5% 5-year CDs, but probably close. Just build your CD ladder, then wash, rinse, repeat.

My ladder still bests inflation (has a real return), even with several rather lame rolls of late. Indeed, my lowest IRA CD is at 1.65%, which is right around what the folks at Social Security contend was my COLA last year. My tastiest is at 5.75%, and runs until January of 2018. The average effective yield on the ladder is north of 2.5%; not spectacular, but adequate.

Bond funds are handy for re-balancing, but little else, if you have the time (and inclination) to DIY and are not hamstrung by 401K choices.
john94549
 
Posts: 2436
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:50 pm

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby Munir » Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:05 am

I've had a combination of short term and intermediate investment grade bond funds. I just shifted totally to short term since the total performance is very close, and the longer duration and therefore risk of the intermediate fund is not worth that small difference in performance. For another 2008, just sit tight with the short term since it will recover much faster with its short duration. Disagree that one needs treasuries.
User avatar
Munir
 
Posts: 1737
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:39 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: Bond Fund Question

Postby FinancialDave » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:31 pm

grabiner wrote:
AAA wrote:I am the OP for this thread. I should have specified that the different nature of the two funds is not of any consequence to me - I actually own both - and for the purposes of this question I am focusing just on the durations - 5.3 and 2.3 years - and the yields - 1.56% and 1.01%. VBTLX is in a Roth IRA, and I frankly don't want to bother moving the funds to another custodian, such as some of the banks suggested here.

I was simply wondering, given the small yield advantage of the longer-duration fund, whether it might be prudent to move to the shorter duration fund. As a hypothetical, what if the yields become substantially equal? Would it be a no-brainer then?


The problem with this question is that the yield difference is only half as much as the duration effect. If you replace your Total Bond Market Index with equal amounts of Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Investment-Grade, you will decrease your interest-rate risk and lose nothing in yield. But this isn't a free lunch; if you look at the 2008 performance of Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Investment-Grade, you will see how much risk of a different type you would be taking.

If the yields become substantially equal, this implies that the risk premium for corporate bonds over Treasury bonds has increased even further, as it did during the 2008 crash; would you have really wanted to go all-corporate at that time?


I was merely pointing out that the risk in the GE corporate notes is essentially zero (especially when compared to the bond alternatives above) and the return is most likely going to be better this year and maybe for a few coming up for these short / interm duration products.

In fact you have already lost money this year in both VBTLX and VFSTX, when compared to a 1% GE (or other) account.

fd
I love simulated data. It turns the impossible into the possible!
FinancialDave
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 10:36 pm


Return to Investing - Help with Personal Investments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lafder, mickcris, pjstack, sdsailing, WhatsUpB, Yahoo [Bot] and 53 guests