$850, 000 portfolio, hates fees, now what?

77 replies [Last post]
vbrainy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-26

What do you do when a client HAD a $1,000,000 lost about $150,000 (not with me) in the recent market downturn in a FEE based account.  NOW HE HATES FEES.  It is a retirement account.
 
I mean I try to group funds to get the sales discount wherever I can, but he is still going to pay about 3.5% upfront on A shares.  That is alot to swallow.  Any ideas?

whalehunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-28

Perhaps you need to educate the client better. If he pays for the fee's with a taxable account they will be ded. Also does he understand that funds have FEES?? & almost always higher at that level.   Educate him and you win!!

Brokermike99's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-12

With 850k you should be much closer to 1-2% upfront.

gad12's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-06

Mixing in a bunch of C- shares will help. 

Spaceman Spiff's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-08-08

If you only use American Funds, you will be able to hit the $500K breakpoint at 2% upfront.  Couple that with some of the lowest expenses in the industry and you have a very light fee load.  You could even hit the $250K break with another fund family to fill in the gaps American Funds leaves.  It would raise the overall by about 1%, but still, not bad on $850K.  C-shares would be fine, but if he can read, and he chooses to read the prospectus looking for the fees, he's out of the frying pan into the fire. 
I'd guess that he might be more upset with his 15% loss than with the fees.  He can just point a finger at the fees and he can't do that with the market.  Perhaps you should show him a better portfolio that didn't go down 15%.  Maybe if he sees that you can save him money on the downside the A share charges won't sting so bad. 

MISS JONES's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-08-28

vbrainy wrote:What do you do when a client HAD a $1,000,000 lost about $150,000 (not with me) in the recent market downturn in a FEE based account.  NOW HE HATES FEES.  It is a retirement account.
 
I mean I try to group funds to get the sales discount wherever I can, but he is still going to pay about 3.5% upfront on A shares.  That is alot to swallow.  Any ideas?
 
Wow, that sure is a lot of money he lost in speculative investments. I would be SOO pissed if I lost 15%!
 
I don't care if this guy likes fees or not.. he has to pay to play. You can show him the value in paying 2.5%- 3.5% if you explain this is a ONE time fee. Plus he will be buying in the market at a cheaper rate then he would have a few months ago.. Explain to him that you are sorry for his loss but that isn't your fault and he can't expect to get quality advice without paying. DUHHH..
 
I seriously get pissed off at these whining clients. Obviously he is a quality candidate and I would give him my time too with 850K but damn, they wear me out.
 
Miss J

Roadhard's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

If the client has a bunch of different mutual funds in the fee based account--transfer in kind and exchange the funds around within the fund families--the least amount of cost to the client--you only get to keep the 12b-1 fees.  It just might be the right thing to do!

MISS JONES's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-08-28

Roadhard wrote:
If the client has a bunch of different mutual funds in the fee based account--transfer in kind and exchange the funds around within the fund families--the least amount of cost to the client--you only get to keep the 12b-1 fees.  It just might be the right thing to do!
 
Great point.. At Jones if the client has American Funds in the managed account you can transfer the F shares in and after holding them for 1 year you can exchange them for A shares without a fee..
 
Miss J

Broker7's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

speculative investments? Your average mutual fund holder has lost 15% since october so far.
 
I can understand why he is mad..anyone would be mad to lose a large part of their retirement next egg.  Adjust portfolios accordingly..more to come!

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

Perhaps if he's not a risk-taker, he should look at a VA.  Look, we all know there are fees involved in everything we do...we have to eat, too.  The fee-based fees are just much more transparent and easy to attack.  It's stupid semantics, but at least a VA wouldn't show a quarterly fee on his statement and he'd have some protection from downside risks with it, along with some income guarantees if desired.
 
One of my pet peeves is how some of my local competitors love to point out my very transparent fee in an effort to take an account while pretending that fees don't exist in their practice.  I've gotten much better at preparing clients for this kind of hypocracy so they recognize it when it is pitched...all I had to do was lose a couple of pretty good accounts!

stokwiz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-04

Suggest he "refinance" his investment. Suggest either funds that have a good track record during market declines, IE: that play defense instead of constantly playing defense. Capital income builder comes to mind, class C. Or go with Pru Xtra credit 6 VA currently paying a 7% upfront credit with no addl fees for the credit, with the lifetime 7 and GRO return of principal. If he complains about fees, remind him he's just "paid" a 15% fee in the form of market losses. Good luck!

Stok

stokwiz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-04

Correction: I meant funds that play defense instead of always playing OFFENSE. Sorry if this has caused  confusion.
 
Stok

fritz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-01-12

Hate to be too negative at the start of a probable 1-2 Bear market, but any broker who thinks the clients will tolerate this wave of managed money b.s is fooling himself.  This is a recent ponzi scheme the firms came up with.  I would think many 1 million producers will lose 30-40% of their assets in the decline and another 33% from clients saying enough.  Meaning production will be down to the 400K area, reality is on its way.

gad12's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-06

fritz wrote:
Hate to be too negative at the start of a probable 1-2 Bear market, but any broker who thinks the clients will tolerate this wave of managed money b.s is fooling himself.  This is a recent ponzi scheme the firms came up with.  I would think many 1 million producers will lose 30-40% of their assets in the decline and another 33% from clients saying enough.  Meaning production will be down to the 400K area, reality is on its way.
 
Give me a break.

gad12's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-06

Not that I am a million dollar producer by any means, but for any decent advisor to lose 30-40% of his assets in a market decline would mean the stock market would have to lose over 50% of it's value. (bonds is the answer to your math question)  

Northfield's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-04-10

I rode through the '98 and 2001-2 markets while building a fee-based practice. Both times added several dozen new fee-based relatinships and lost less than 3-4. This January alone, I have added 4 new fee-based accounts from clients deciding they'd rather have me running the investments on a professional basis, rather than us doing it together on an ad-hoc basis. So this is an environment that is terrific for adding to your fee-based account base. You're building the leverage for the next bull mkt.
 
For the clients who were with me during the past bear market they know as well as I do how the movie ends. It ends well if you don't panic, and if you don't try acting like a hedge-fund manager or market timer. Remove anything toxic or exotic from the portfolio, check the allocation (60/40 or whatever) and ride it out. 
 
If this strategy seems insane to you, then you should consider getting your own TV show with a bright yellow backdrop and noisy props. Cramer needs competition.
 
For the $850k prospect, is he going to be a client or a customer? Clients want your ongoing advice and counsel regardless of market conditions, and would rather pay you on a fee bassis.
 
Customers realy only want to do business with you while times are good, and you may as well do transactional, brokerage business with them. At least you'll get paid.

aldo63's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-11

i suggest you punch him in the face and tell him markets go up and down. if he was in a VA you could kill him and get his heirs could get his money back(death benefit)  i hate clients like that. it sounds like he never experienced a down market. ask him if was in the market in 200-2003. if he was show him how much it went down and how much it came back
offer him these options
ladder a bond portfolio, he will not see any fees even though they are there.
do a C share portfolio, maybe add some UIT's. some clients just hate paying fees. it does not matter how much you explain the cost they just do not want to see the fee. I have won accounts just because i paid (ate) their ira fee.
i still say punch him in the face or do what beecher did to scillinger on HBO's OZ
 

fritz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-01-12

You could alway tell him Booyah..or "Welcome to the house of Pain" when he calls the next time.

outofjail's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-12-11

Tell the idot to hit the road! Yes 850k is a nice chunk but its not worth the bother of someone who cant take the ups and downs of the market. We all panic at times (Sept 11 2001) the end as we knew it.........fire him and get on with your practice.

Morphius's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-21

Who doesn't hate paying for stuff?  Who doesn't want something for nothing?Unfortunately, whether we like it or not is irrelevant: there's no such thing as a free lunch.  That universal law is NOT suspended when it comes to investing.  The question isn't whether there is a cost to investing, it's how much it is and how you pay it. Then start asking questions to probe what is REALLY frustrating him, because I agree that chances are the fees are just an easy target.  The more you can refocus his mind on his real goals and the process you use, the more likely you are to discover the rational person lurking behind the facade of the guy you're sitting across the table from.  And once you get him to admit that you're right, you've already won him over and he is ready to follow your lead.That's generally the key - if you let him set the agenda and the tone for the conversation you'll never please him, because his expectations are unrealistic.  If you tactfully but confidently lead him to the real issues he needs to focus on, you have the basis for a productive working relationship.  If you can't lead him, let him go.  I know it hurts, but it's better for both of you.  In those cases I remind myself that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it.I choose to only work with thirsty horses.

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

Tell the client to go to Vanguard. He will pay less than 30 basis points a year.

vbrainy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-26

As usual, you are giving good information.
 
Right now, I think I will use as many American Funds as I can.  But, personally I would not put all of my retirement funds with any one company.
 
And, he has to see the long term impact.  The sales fees upfront will be made up for in a great portfolio.

vbrainy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-26

I have to say, I agree.  Especially when the fee based accounts don't hold up or have some stinky mutual funds.
 
We will see where fee based accounts end up a couple of years from now.
 
Everything old is new again.

theironhorse's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-03

"stinky funds" in fee based accounts?  have you looked at any.  they do normally contain fidelity, vanguard, franklin-templeton, american, dodge & cox, etc etc.  they are not programs where the red headed stepchild goes to hide.  those are just the fund based programs. 
i think the whole transparency issue puts fee based guys behind the 8 ball.  can you guys seriously show people a .25 fee on their AF and feel like you disclosed all their fees?  no matter what Jones says about THEIR clients holding periods, i don't buy it.  How many clients do you think will actually hold funds 10+ years.  I would bet the % is pretty low.  moving the guy from A share to A share because of long term lower costs is comical to me.  in a vacuum it works, but in real life it hardly ever (ok, not normally) happens.
i see the same damn thing with VA's.  surrender charges come through insurance companies everyday.  client buys under the long term hold guise, then gets "new" advice to change.

kirkyboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-01-28

15% is what Mr. Market has lost since October '07.
 
Most client's risk tolerance is nice and high...until the inevitable correction in the market. Tend to agree it's not the fees but the loss incurred. Perhaps he/she needs to be re-educated in terms of risk tolerance and asset allocation. That should help sooth the beast and help put the loss and fees in perspective, not to mention help you re-position his funds and close the deal.

MISS JONES's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-08-28

iceco1d wrote:kirkyboy wrote:
15% is what Mr. Market has lost since October '07.
 
Most client's risk tolerance is nice and high...until the inevitable correction in the market. Tend to agree it's not the fees but the loss incurred. Perhaps he/she needs to be re-educated in terms of risk tolerance and asset allocation. That should help sooth the beast and help put the loss and fees in perspective, not to mention help you re-position his funds and close the deal.
 
Sounds like a BJQ reincarnated post...any half arsed advisor should be able to tell if a client is fibbing about their risk tolerance or has unreasonable expectations.
 
I don't believe he is BJQ personally.. But I do think the person that started the "sponsorship" thread is BJQ.
 
Miss J

kirkyboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-01-28

Just perusing this board. New to board, not whatshisface. Agreed (i.e. any half arsed...) but some clients can delude/lie (to themselves) and no one would ever know.  

apex01's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-27

Here is a novel idea.......You could take some time and get to know him and his overall situation? Is there some other needs? Long-Term Care? Estate Planning? Income Planning?  Usually someone who has a large 401K balance and isn't pulling money out is pretty well off and there is more opportunity. Obviously, the previous advisor did a lot of things wrong in this relationship. Most importantly he didn't show his value. He took his large rollover threw it in a managed account and had bragging rights for a day. It is really paying him well now, isn't it?
 
I commend you for finding a good prospect but be a "Financial Advisor" not an "Order Taker"

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

Here's how I'd do it:

Invest large cap portion in Wash Mutual, Fundamental, Growth Fund
Invest mid cap portion in mid cap index fund (value, blend, growth)
invest small cap portion in small cap index funds (value, blend growth)

Invest International in Vanguard total Intl (it's lower cost and it's outperformed Europacific growth and captial world growth)
or you could break it out into Eur index fund, pacific and emerging

I'd also add a very small amount of commodites for more diversification (smoothe out ups and downs)

For fixed income
Emerging Debt
High Income
Long term bond

I'd have a pre specificed % for each fund and rebalance anually. This will force you to buy low and sell high.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

You don't know a thing about the client and you already have recommendations.   I see that you add a lot of value to your clients.

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

That's the reason I didn't break it down into percentages dummy.

anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-09-29

Ok, without knowing anything about the guy, how do you know what funds should be used?  How do you even know that he should be in funds?  People who "hate fees", yet come from a fee-based account, probably don't hate fees.  He hates losing money.   The fact that he wants to make a change after losing money may indicate that a VA is in order.  (I don't have a clue because I don't know a thing about the guy.)
Does your firm have a selling agreement with Vanguard that would allow you to sell Vanguard funds?

Morphius's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-21

josephjones107 wrote:That's the reason I didn't break it down into percentages dummy. Atta boy - when all else fails, why not try name calling?  It's so much easier than resorting to actual reasoned discourse.  Or maybe - using your apparent logic - it's not name calling if you don't actually specify what percentage of a dummy you think he is?

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

I'm not going to be an order taker and basically ask the client what they would like to invest in.

80% of my clients have similiar goals and I know what needs to be done to get them to those goals. I control the client relationship and not vice versa. Sure I ask them their goals, but in the end I can guarantee I'm investing them into a very diverse portfolio.

At this point, I don't need any one prospects business, so I just sell what I believe in

noggin's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

josephjones107 wrote:Here's how I'd do it: Invest large cap portion in Wash Mutual, Fundamental, Growth Fund Invest mid cap portion in mid cap index fund (value, blend, growth) invest small cap portion in small cap index funds (value, blend growth) Invest International in Vanguard total Intl (it's lower cost and it's outperformed Europacific growth and captial world growth) or you could break it out into Eur index fund, pacific and emerging I'd also add a very small amount of commodites for more diversification (smoothe out ups and downs) For fixed income Emerging Debt High Income Long term bond I'd have a pre specificed % for each fund and rebalance anually. This will force you to buy low and sell high.
 
Wow, that's really good!!!  Do you mind if I use that for my clients? I would have never have thought of combining American Funds and Vanguard, that is genius!! I feel like I am reading straight from Benjamin Graham when I read your posts.... Tell me more, please......

Sedona's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-02

Northfield wrote:I rode through the '98 and 2001-2 markets while building a fee-based practice. Both times added several dozen new fee-based relatinships and lost less than 3-4. This January alone, I have added 4 new fee-based accounts from clients deciding they'd rather have me running the investments on a professional basis, rather than us doing it together on an ad-hoc basis. So this is an environment that is terrific for adding to your fee-based account base. You're building the leverage for the next bull mkt.
 
For the clients who were with me during the past bear market they know as well as I do how the movie ends. It ends well if you don't panic, and if you don't try acting like a hedge-fund manager or market timer. Remove anything toxic or exotic from the portfolio, check the allocation (60/40 or whatever) and ride it out. 
 
If this strategy seems insane to you, then you should consider getting your own TV show with a bright yellow backdrop and noisy props. Cramer needs competition.
 
For the $850k prospect, is he going to be a client or a customer? Clients want your ongoing advice and counsel regardless of market conditions, and would rather pay you on a fee bassis.
 
Customers realy only want to do business with you while times are good, and you may as well do transactional, brokerage business with them. At least you'll get paid.Great post, you can tell it comes from the frontlines.The client is not upset with the fees, but with the performance. You should first show a hypo of what he would have lost had he been  in a low cost S&P 500 fund or ETF, so he can see fees had nothing to do with it.Second, if you choose to charge fees, you need to explain WHY YOU DESERVE the fees, meaning, what services you will provide him in exchange for the fees. Investment services alone does not justify 1-1.5% in fees on top of MF wrap accounts or 2-2.5% in stock trading accounts.Depending on the client's age, you can either:(1) Do a VA to "lock in" the floor as lifetime income and invest in MF within the annuity. High cost but you're paying for insurance.or (2) Do a mix of 30% Cash and CDs, 30% Short-Intermediate Bond Ladder,  30%  in Actively Managed Diversified Mutual Funds, and 10% in Alternative Investments. Use the large cash position to ease into the market over the next 6-12 months depending on market conditions.Explain that his natural intention of going to CDs/Cash will make it very difficult to get back to even considering today's low interest rates.My 2 cents.

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

American Funds has been very successful outperforming, but they're mostly a large cap manager.

Vanguard index funds are good for mid cap and small cap areas because investment managers have had alot of difficulty beating their benchmarks in those areas. Additionally the index funds are a heck of alot cheaper than most actively managed funds for mid & small.

Broker24's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-10-12

josephjones107 wrote:American Funds has been very successful outperforming, but they're mostly a large cap manager. Vanguard index funds are good for mid cap and small cap areas because investment managers have had alot of difficulty beating their benchmarks in those areas. Additionally the index funds are a heck of alot cheaper than most actively managed funds for mid & small.
 
Not a bad baseline.  My only concern with using indexes is that they can't do anything strategic or tactical.  That's what you pay AMF for.  However, you are right - AMF is terrible in the small cap space.  They are great in large, mid/large, and international.  They are average in bonds.  But they really manage to objectives, not style boxes or Morningstar Categories.  So if you are looking for consistency of income and growth of income, they are lights out.  They probably have the top core funds out there (I am partial to CapIncBuilder, CapWrldGI, FundInv, IncomeFund).  However, some of their satellite funds leave something to be desired.  Though I do like the strategy in New World Fund - lower volatility exposure to emerging markets (they use indirect exposure for much of that portfolio).  Yes, returns are lower, but "lower" is a relative term.  And it reduces volatility comapred to many EmMarket funds.
I tend to use FranklinTemp for satellite funds.

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

Broker24 wrote: josephjones107 wrote:American Funds has been very successful outperforming, but they're mostly a large cap manager. Vanguard index funds are good for mid cap and small cap areas because investment managers have had alot of difficulty beating their benchmarks in those areas. Additionally the index funds are a heck of alot cheaper than most actively managed funds for mid & small.
 
Not a bad baseline.  My only concern with using indexes is that they can't do anything strategic or tactical.  That's what you pay AMF for.  However, you are right - AMF is terrible in the small cap space.  They are great in large, mid/large, and international.  They are average in bonds.  But they really manage to objectives, not style boxes or Morningstar Categories.  So if you are looking for consistency of income and growth of income, they are lights out.  They probably have the top core funds out there (I am partial to CapIncBuilder, CapWrldGI, FundInv, IncomeFund).  However, some of their satellite funds leave something to be desired.  Though I do like the strategy in New World Fund - lower volatility exposure to emerging markets (they use indirect exposure for much of that portfolio).  Yes, returns are lower, but "lower" is a relative term.  And it reduces volatility comapred to many EmMarket funds.
I tend to use FranklinTemp for satellite funds.

I think Capital (am funds) is very smart and they know it's extremely hard to beat mid & small indexes, so they don't get involved in those. (outside of sm cap world which is a differnt game)

Your concern with indexes not being strategic or tactical: this is where the advisor comes in. When you rebalance to predetermined levels for asset class you buy low & sell high automatically.

As for Volatility, the focus should be the overall volatility of the entire portfolio, not so much on the fund level. Case in point: many advisors/clients had a very large % invested in large caps (since they are less volatile) in 2001 and 2002 and got destroyed (growth fund of america was down 22%) Had you been more diversified and had clients invested in Emerging (only down 2% in 2002) and mid cap (down -14.61) your portfolio volatility was a lot less.

gad12's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-06

You guys crack me up.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

NOW is a good time to be investing in long bonds?!!!
 
It's EASIER to beat indexes as a large cap manager?!!!
 
Sorry, but I'm going to have to completely disagree on both counts.  Long rates are at historic lows and have little room to maneuver lower.  Whan rates inevitably rise, long bonds will be the first to get creamed, and will get proportionately more damage.  When I can get 3.5% in a money market fund, there's not much incentive to buy a 30-year treasury paying 4.25%...the risk/reward is just terrible at these levels.
 
Likewise, large cap markets are by far the most efficient ones since large cap stocks naturally have much more trading volume and analyst coverage, making outperformance considerably more difficult.
 
Do yourself and your clients a favor...at least go through the investment module of the CFP and when you've passed that, come back and tell us if you still feel the same way...I'm betting no.

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

5 Year Large cap (S&P)
Index 11.54%
Average large fund 14.64%

5 year mid cap (MSCI US MID CAP 450)
Index 16.08%
Average fund 14.34%

gad12's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-12-06

josephjones107 wrote: 5 Year Large cap (S&P) Index 11.54% Average large fund 14.64% 5 year mid cap (MSCI US MID CAP 450) Index 16.08% Average fund 14.34%
 
Please stop making a fool of yourself.  (You are also using stupid statistics you don't understand and aren't true comparisons to do it).   

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

Pretty basic stuff son, no need to get confused.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

OK, there are proportionately more lousy mid-cap managers than large cap managers during the past five years.  That doesn't mean it's harder for mid-cap managers to beat an index.  It simply means that the available pool of talent performed relatively poorly when compared to large cap managers.  Does anyone else here disagree that large cap markets are more efficient than small caps and thus harder to beat over a given period of time?

newnew's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

indexes are for the MOST efficient markets (large caps) where active alpha is harder to obtain. this jones guy is totally wrong, and is making a fool of himself.

newnew's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

it is part of the jones culture to constantly use hypos or whatever to look at past results, when the real issue is managing risk MOVING FORWARD

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

Mid & small managers have difficulty because of market impact costs. (you may want to read up on that as you are way out of your league right now)   Cash flows of actively managed funds (mid & small) destroy performance.

newnew's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

this is crazy

newnew's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

ok my last post was too short. what I mean to say is that obviously active managers capitalize on less efficient markets---they can find opportunity in volatility.  more efficiency=less opportunity. very very basic

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

Okay, I'll do a little hand holding for you

Market Impact Costs (101)
MARKET IMPACT COSTS
Unfortunately, trading costs do not end with commissions and bid/offer spreads. Active managers incur market-impact costs, too. Market impact is what happens when a mutual fund buys or sells a large block of stock. The fund’s purchase or sale causes the stock to move beyond its current bid (lower) or offer (higher) price, increasing the cost of trading.
BARRA Inc., a Berkeley, California–based research organization (www.barra.com) studied market-impact costs and found many factors (fund size, asset class and turnover) can influence costs. BARRA noted that a typical small-cap or mid-cap stock fund with $500 million in assets and an annual turnover rate of between 80% and 100% could lose 3% to 5% annually to market-impact costs—far more than the annual expenses of most funds.
For the period BARRA studied, the PBHG Emerging Growth Fund happened to have the highest estimated market-impact cost among small-cap or mid-cap funds—5.73% annually.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×