A Bird in the Hand

Two recent pension surveys caught my eye last week.  The first suggested, somewhat unsurprisingly, that retirees prefer a guaranteed income to an equivalent sum of savings.

 The report was based on lifestyle survey data and the analysis contained a lot of squiggly charts and tables of data.  The upshot though is that increasing guaranteed income appears to encourage social participation (and other activities associated with the feeling of wellbeing) to a degree not matched by merely increasing wealth.

The survey was conducted specifically to investigate issues relating to the pension freedoms introduced in April of this year.  These gave many retirees an alternative to simply purchasing a guaranteed income in the form of an annuity.  Effectively the freedoms present investors with a choice between a fixed income for life (an annuity) and investing, at their own risk, to provide an uncertain level of income.

It’s not hard to see where the stress comes from.  Producing an acceptable income from savings has always been a challenge, one that eludes many “professionals”.  The current low rate environment exacerbates this problem.  Add in a generalised lack of financial self-confidence, not to mention the intimidating “mystique” surrounding investment, and it’s easy to see why most pension savers are happy to let others take responsibility for their retirement income.

However, even leaving aside the emotional and educational aspects, uncertainty creates real risk and people are prepared to pay significant sums to avoid it.  Indeed the entire premise of insurance industry is that people will pay more in premiums than they’ll ever claim from their insurance policies.

Another way of looking at this is from the perspective of an annuity provider.  Previous blog entries on this site have illustrated just how expensive it is to buy an indexed-linked pension compared with a level annuity that pays a fixed income for life.  Adding indexation sees the provider assume the risk of protecting their clients from future inflation.  Even ignoring inflation, providers still run the unquantifiable risk of longevity.  It is this, combined with current low interest rates, that make annuities appear such poor value.

Another survey indicated that typically only 6% of retirement income comes from savings.  48% comes from benefits or the state pension, whilst private pensions chip in 42% on average.

These two surveys would appear to support each other inasmuch as savers’ lack of comfort with cash, as opposed to a secured income, suggests that they “value” savings less.  Of course there may be practical issues that limit an individual’s ability to save.  However, it is a shame that the flexibility of savings is underappreciated.

The slight irony is that the various regulatory developments that have occurred since the vast majority of these private pensions were accumulated have indeed made private pensions a more rational choice as a means of long-term saving.  With the 55% Death Tax removed, pension pots can be passed on intact and sometimes entirely tax free.  That is a significant advantage  compared with seeing your entire pension pot disappear upon the death of you and your partner, simply because you wanted to remove all income uncertainty from your life by purchasing an annuity.

The inescapable, and somewhat unfortunate, result of all this is that pensions have become even more complicated and daunting than ever.  Annuities remain an option, but the opportunity cost of buying one has increased substantially now that pensions can be spent or passed on at the pensioner’s absolute discretion.  In many ways a pension is better than a trust.  The pensioner remains in control of the funds for their lifetime, but can pass them on to their direct descendants tax free.

Ironically this inheritance tax advantage may cause investors to leave their pensions intact and instead rely on non-pension savings for their retirement income.  Which neatly brings us full circle to people’s aversion to saving!

Take care out there

PensionMan

Read more

The meek shall inherit the earth (if their parents are rich enough)

Until relatively recently the tide had been running very much against inheritance tax planning.  Successive governments had closed loopholes and negated time-honoured strategies to make what was once dubbed a “voluntary” tax more and more difficult to avoid.  Over the past year though those lacking the gift of immortality have been presented with two very valuable estate management tools.

The first I have already discussed at length.  Abolishing the so-called pensions “death tax” allows pension funds to be passed from generation to generation, only being taxed at the beneficiary’s marginal income tax rate when cash is withdrawn.  Technically a pension fund could always be passed on free of the reviled IHT.  The problem was that the so-called death tax (arguably the ultimate exit charge) of 55% more than made up for the IHT exemption.

Last week’s budget though added another tool to the estate planner’s armoury, namely the potential to shelter the family home from IHT.  Currently we all “enjoy”, although I’m not quite sure that is the correct verb, an IHT allowance of £325,000.  For a couple that sums to £650,000 with a relatively recent innovation being that that allowance can be passed on to the surviving partner upon the first partner’s death.  Thus, combined with the fact that trusts tend to be less favourably treated these days, the default option for many married couples is to leave everything to the surviving spouse who will then proceed to give away as much as possible once their own needs have been met (utilising gifting rules and seven year potentially exempt transfers).

What Mr Osborne added last week was a further IHT allowance per person specifically associated with the family home.  This will start at £100,000 in 2017 and steadily rise each year until it reaches £175,000 in 2020/21.  Thereafter it will rise in line with the Consumer Price Index.  When complete it will exempt a £1,000,000 family home entirely from IHT, although everything else will then be taxed at 40%.

The tax planning opportunity comes where people have more modest homes and are relatively cash rich.  Granted this doesn’t apply to everyone.  However, if you are looking to leave a little something to the kids or grandchildren, it might be worth considering “upsizing” the family home if that is an option.

Let’s put some figures on that.  A married couple with a home worth £650,000 could upsize (or at least upvalue) to a pad worth a million.  Think luxurious penthouse apartment with a stunning cityscape view!  This would potentially save their heirs £140,000 in inheritance tax by sheltering an additional £350,000 in the family home.

Those still looking to downsize will be able to do so by utilising another innovation, the “inheritance tax credit”.  This preserves the new allowance for those downsizing so long as the bulk of the estate is left to direct descendants.  The hope is that this will encourage retired individuals to free up larger houses for growing families.

It’s only fair to point out that once the family home reaches beyond £2,000,000, the additional allowance is withdrawn at the rate of £1 for every £2 of value.

Additionally you will not be surprised to hear that not only does the Chancellor giveth, but he also taketh away.  The cost of all this IHT largesse is that those earning more than £150,000 will see their annual pension contribution allowance stepped down in increments from £40,000 to £10,000.

The upshot though is that families now have two new and very powerful tools to shelter considerable funds for future generations: private pensions and the family home.  The caveat, of course, is that the law is so fluid that any beneficial change could easily be reversed with expensive consequences.  I suspect though that these two particular changes will be preserved going forward, even if future governments feel the need to temper pension freedoms generally going forward.

Take care out there

PensionMan

 

Read more

Is it better to go for an index-linked pension or a steadily rising annuity

As I discussed last month, people often underestimate how much it costs to protect your pension from the ravages of inflation.  We saw, for example, that a £100,000 pension pot might typically buy you a level annuity of £5,448 a year.  This would remain constant for the rest of your life, which could easily be another 30 years.  If, however, you wanted your income to increase by 5% a year, your starting annual income would almost half to £2,815.  To put that into perspective, you would have to live until you were 90 before you broke even on your decision to opt for a 5% annual escalation.  That is six and a half years longer than the current male life expectancy.

However, a 5% annual increase is actually considerably above the current inflation rate.  Indeed over the past year the Retail Price Index has increased by just 0.9%.  Even if you go all the way back to 1981, the average only climbs to 3.85%.  In view of this, if you merely wanted your pension to increase by the rate of inflation, rather than a fixed 5%, you might expect that your starting level would be higher.  And you would be correct!  Instead of starting at £2,815 and increasing by 5% a year, you would start at £3,294 and rise in line with inflation.

Of course we’ve got no idea what inflation will be over the next few months, let alone the next 30 years.  However, if you assume that inflation going forward will be the mirror image of what it has been over the past 25 years, i.e. starting low and then building to peaks to reflect the spike in prices in the early 1990s, you come up with some interesting figures.  You would, for example, have to live until 97 before you would have been paid as much by an RPI-linked annuity as by the level annual payment.  A clearer indication of just how expensive it is to protect yourself against future inflation is that you would only have to live until 78 (having retired at 65) to be better off opting for an annual 5% increase rather than a rise based on inflation.

This illustrates two things.  Firstly it is very expensive to provide an escalating pension, especially one linked to future inflation risks.  This is because you are asking the annuity provider to effectively “insure” you against unknown future price increases.

The even more significant risk that all annuities insure you against is longevity risk.  That is the risk that you live longer than you or your annuity company have budgeted for.  An annuity will, generally, keep paying out until you die, whether that is at 66 or 106.  It is true that you can pay extra to have the income guaranteed for a minimum period of 10-years.  This means that your beneficiaries don’t lose the value of the entire £100,000 if you drop dead far sooner than you might have hoped.  However, this generally doesn’t cost that much (but I will cover this in another update).  By far the greater cost to your annuity provider is if you live on to a ripe old age.

The point is that the “insurance” element shouldn’t be underestimated, both in terms of its cost, but also in terms of its value.  One way of appreciating how much you are being charged is to consider that the average male life expectancy is 83.5 years.  If you were simply to keep your £100,000 pension pot and take an income of £5,448 (equivalent to the level annuity and assuming no investment growth whatsoever), your pot would last until you were a little over 83  years and four months old.  Basically the price you are paying the insurance company for agreeing to sustain your pension until you die is equivalent to every last penny you may have earned on your £100,000 for almost 20 years.

This is not to say nobody should buy an annuity, or that they shouldn’t have it inflation-linked.  What it is saying though is that these things cost money and you can only really appreciate how much if you delve a little deeper.

Take care out there

PensionMan

Read more

Keeping your options open

A recent study by Friends Life indicated a significant shortfall between the income people expected to need in retirement and what their savings were on track to deliver.  The study broke the numbers down on a regional basis and showed that savers in the North East and South West were likely to be the least disappointed.  Nationally though people expected to need £409.10 per week, but were likely to have to make do with far less than that: £312.40 to be precise, a shortfall of £96.69 a week.

The more encouraging survey finding though was that people were planning to accumulate a “basket” of products and sources of income to fund their retirement.  Whilst the recently introduced freedoms have made pensions significantly more attractive, the lesson of recent history is that a variety of income sources provides the best chance of optimising your affairs to provide the most resilient and tax efficient income in retirement.

Indeed I touched on this a couple of months ago when discussing “Taking a tax-efficient income in retirement”. So when 29% of pre-retirees surveyed indicated that they intend to supplement their retirement income with a savings account and 18% plan to use a cash ISA, this is an indication that people are thinking flexibly. ISAs share a number of the tax advantages of pension. Crucially, even though the inheritance tax advantages are far more limited, ISA withdrawals are free of income tax. This makes them excellent vehicles to top up income if your level of pension drawdown is close to pushing you into a higher tax bracket in any given year. Indeed ISAs the arguments for drawing down ISAs first are persuasive precisely for the reason that they are income tax free, but aren’t easily passed on the future generations.

One particularly interesting aspect of the survey is that whereas 17% of people approaching retirement were thinking in terms of either downsizing or selling their property to unlock funds, only 4% of retirees have actually used funds from this source.

This would rather suggest that most savers will be a little more circumspect about investing their hard-earned pension pots in buy-to-let properties than the recent hype might suggest. BTL though might be a viable proposition for excess funds not already enjoying the tax advantages of a pension. That though is a story for another day.

Take care out there

PensionMan

Read more

A taxing emergency

Plenty of people have warned of the income tax implications of next month’s pension freedoms. As I wrote last year (How to spend it), someone drawing down £200,000 from a personal pension should expect to pay a minimum of almost £50,000 in income tax. That is even if they have no other taxable income. The Daily Telegraph has summarised this in a neat little table illustrating a number of different scenarios combining non pension income and the sum drawn down from your pension. The associated article can be read here.

The tax itself will be deducted at source by the pensions company and remitted to the Treasury.

Pension Tax

What is less widely noted though is that, in the absence of a clear indication of what your tax code actually is, pension companies will apply an emergency tax code. This could easily be as high as 45%. Worse still, it will ignore any entitlement you will most likely have to take 25% of the pot tax free.

The situation arises because HM Revenue & Customs treats any money drawn as the first of a series of monthly payments. This is similar to what currently happens when pensioners draw down a regular monthly sum from their pension to live on. It is less helpful for pension freedom withdrawals, which are likely to be one-offs and involve far larger sums.

The good news is that the money isn’t lost for all time. However, the process of reclaiming it is complicated and easily misunderstood. If you have no other income apart from your State pension, you must complete a P50 form and return it to HMRC. It will then take up to six weeks to receive your refund. If you do have other sources of income you must complete a P53 form.

Alternatively you can wait until the end of the tax year at which point the overpayment should be corrected automatically. The downside of being patient is that HMRC will be sitting on many thousands of pounds of your cash. To put this in monetary terms, if you take my example of a pensioner with no other income withdrawing £200,000, the overpayment could be anything up to £40,000. The true income tax liability is an already chunky £49,000. However, applying an “emergency” 45% rate and ignoring any 25% tax free cash entitlement, could easily see £90,000 of your £200,000 being remitted to HMRC.

Take care out there

PensionMan

Read more

Speaking their language – managing student loans with pensions

The biggest hurdle to overcome when selling an idea to someone is to engage their interest.  Once the connection is made you ‘re off.  Now this can apply as much to personal conversations as it can to business or sales scenarios.  Equally though, there subjects or even words that are slam dunk conversation stoppers.  Thus I often try to contain my enthusiasm should a dinner table conversation with friends drift towards the vexed subject of pensions.

 So, after an excellent New Year’s Day lunch with old friends and their university-aged offspring, I was more than happy to listen to the students around the table describe their financial frustrations and challenges.  I manfully resisted the temptation to assume a financial mother hen persona.

The conversation continued to dwell on finances giving a rather fine bottle of red time to start to work its magic.  I chanced a one liner about ways of mitigating the burden of student loan repayment.  Encouraged by the fact that eyes didn’t glaze over immediately I elaborated briefly and will paraphrase below.

To put it simplistically student loan repayments are calculated as 9% of income above a certain threshold.  In 2014-15 that threshold is £16,910.  One way to manage this would be to somehow reduce your income.  I know that sounds a bit drastic, but bear with me.

In the case of child benefit HMRC starts to claw back benefit payments from any parent earning more than £50,000.  For someone earning a little above that threshold, one way of “reducing” their income, and by so doing retain more or even all of their benefit, would be to make pension contributions.  This works because the contributions are deducted from a person’s headline salary.

Unfortunately, student loan deductions are treated slightly differently inasmuch that from calculated before deducting tax or National Insurance contributions.

All is not lost, however.  A technique known as “salary sacrifice” can be employed to barter a portion of your salary for additional benefits (usually in the form of a pension).  This then does reduce your salary for the purposes of repaying a student loan.

Of course this might not be what you want to do and some people just want to repay the debt as soon as possible, which is fine.  However, salary sacrifice can be a useful tool for younger workers who want to make an early start on their pension provision.

One further consideration for those either approaching, or actually in retirement, is that the age cap on student loans was removed in 2013.  This, combined with an increase in the income limit from 2016 to £21,000, means that any pensioner undergraduate might never have to repay their loans if their pension doesn’t exceed the threshold.  Better still, after 2016, the threshold will rise in line with average earnings.

So whilst these are two slightly off the wall financial strategies, they don’t have to be conversation stoppers

Cheers

PensionMan

Read more

Taking a tax-efficient income in retirement

I’ve had a few conversations with people off line following my last post on the inheritance tax implications of #pensionfreedom.  What I’d like to do here is illustrate a few of the other implications in terms of how they affect different savings vehicles.  Before I do so however, it is important to note that Pensions Minister Steve Webb has stated that pensions should not become “a vehicle for inheritance tax planning”.  This suggests that it is at least possible that some of the recent pension freedom proposals might not actually see the light of day.  Worse still they might be reversed following May’s election.

So with that rather large pinch of salt, I’ll launch into what pension freedom, as currently proposed, implies for savings as I understand things to be.

To quickly recap, and generalise horribly, if you die after April 6th, but before the age of 75, your pension pot can be passed on to whomever you have nominated, free of inheritance tax.  Furthermore the pot will be theirs to spend as they please entirely free of income tax too.

Should you die after 75 the pot can still be passed on IHT-free, but tax will have to be paid at the recipient’s marginal rate if they require cash.  It is also worth remembering that the post 75 Death Tax reduces from 55% to 45% in April, but isn’t removed altogether until April 2016.

So how does this compare with other investments?  Recent ISA rule changes allow ISAs to be passed on between partners without losing their tax wrapper.  Previously ISA proceeds could be passed between couples, but, from the date of the first death, they would lose their income and capital gains tax advantages.  That new benefit is lost though on the second death and ISA assets become part of the couple’s estate for inheritance tax purposes, just like any other non-ISA savings.

So what we have effectively from the perspective of someone who has just retired is:

Private pension: Income is taxed at a person’s marginal rate and, if an annuity is not taken, 25% of the pot is generally available income tax free.  Zero IHT.

ISA: Zero income and capital gains tax.  Remember that assets can always be passed between partners free of inheritance tax regardless of tax wrapper.

Other assets outside ISA/Pension wrappers (bank deposits, investment funds, property etc): These generally enjoy no IHT exemptions and are subject to income and capital gains tax at the investor’s marginal rate.

These tax differences have implications for the order in which a pensioner might most efficiently derive an income from his or her savings, whilst maximising any possible legacy should their funds survive them.

All other things being equal it would make sense to utilise those resources deriving the least inheritance tax protection first.  It’s not quite that simple of course.  In certain circumstances it might make sense to combine income from non-wrapped and ISA sources in order to ensure that your marginal income tax rate is no higher than it needs to be.

Thus to cut a very long story short, the general idea would be to start to take your income from a combination of non tax-exempt assets, mixing in ISA income along the way.  This is because ISAs have income and capital gains tax advantages during a couple’s lifetime, which disappear entirely upon the second death.

The last port of call might be your pension (assuming you opt to drawdown rather than simply buy an annuity at retirement).  This is especially attractive to your loved ones due to the removal of the death tax.  It does highlight though the importance of making nominations of desired beneficiaries and, importantly, keeping these updated to reflect any changes in your personal circumstances.

This, of course, is all very simplistic, but does at least provide a few points to consider when deciding how to produce a retirement income from your assets.

So until everything changes yet again,

take care out there

PensionMan

Read more

Pensions Freedom – the lessons from history

Fortunately it was the English who were dishing out the lessons against the Australians at Twickenham last Saturday. However, one lesson we would all do well to learn from Australia relates to the consequences of freeing pensions savers from the obligation to buy an annuity.

As the whinging poms stand on the verge of gaining some very significant pensions freedoms, the lessons of history should not be ignored. In 1993 Australia took a very similar step. More than 20-years later a root and branch examination of Australia’s financial system revealed some interesting statistics on how Australians have used their freedom.

The Murray Review, published in July, found that roughly half of those retiring in Australia take their pension as a lump sum. Of this group 44% used the money to pay off housing and other debts, to purchase a home or to make home improvements. A further 28% used the money to repay a vehicle or holiday loan or to buy a holiday or new car. The somewhat worrying result of all this is that a quarter of those who possibly regarded themselves as being reasonably well off at 55, had run out of cash by the time they were 70. The report also suggested that for some, even the mere knowledge that they were due a lump sum, caused them to overspend before they retired.

The inescapable conclusion is that a significant minority of people require more help than is currently available to rise to the challenge of providing for their retirement. It is an enormous step to go from living from month to month, or even week to week, to being given one lump sum and being expected to make it last for the rest of your life.

The need for financial education has never been greater.

Read more

Annuities mis-sold shock!

Impaired annuities are very much in the news today. The Telegraph has made a front page splash of Aviva’s decision to pay compensation and increase payments after uncovering that hundreds of customers were sold inappropriate deals. At issue is that the company sold people standard annuities despite them being eligible for higher payments due to health issues or lifestyle choices.

The numbers vary considerably, but one major annuity broker highlights some possible income uplifts for impaired life products. If you’ve already suffered a stroke or had a heart attack, for example, you could easily be entitled to an annuity uplift of up to 75%. Even merely being a self-confessed smoker or overweight could increase your income by over 15% compared with the best standard products.

Anyway, the Telegraph article is well worth a read if you are considering buying an annuity. The lesson is, do check out the full range of annuity options and remember that up to 60% of annuity purchasers might qualify for enhanced income.

Read more

How to spend it!

One of the biggest concerns I hear from people about retirement is how to turn pension savings into income.  When I were a lad there were final salary pensions for the lucky few with everyone else more or less compelled to acquire an annuity, if indeed they had any pension provision at all.

Whilst this wasn’t an especially flexible state of affairs, it did have the virtue of simplicity.  It meant that people didn’t need to think too deeply about their pensions if they didn’t want to.  For sure the financial outcome was often less than ideal, but the relative lack of interface with the financial system suited many people just fine.  Somewhat depressingly though, even as people were encouraged to shop around for the best annuity deal, as recently as 2010, a depressing two-thirds purchased their annuities from their existing pension provider.

Against that sort of backdrop it isn’t hard to imagine that the recently announced pension freedoms will actually cause some people considerable stress.  Previously the decision was largely taken out of your hands so there wasn’t quite the same scope to “regret” your choice once you were committed.

Next year, however, imminent retirees will be painfully aware that the path of least resistance, an annuity, is very likely not their best option.  At the same time though, they will be faced with the responsibility of how best to provide themselves with a pension for life from their savings: a weighty burden.

So what are the investment issues?

First up, the new freedoms change the investment horizon.  Previously someone just a year from retirement, and the associated annuity purchase, would be extremely risk averse.  They would be looking to protect their fund from an unfortunate, last minute slide in either investment valuations or annuity rates.  However, while an essentially zero return is fair enough over a few months, or even a year, the average length of retirement is already close to 20 years, which is an altogether different proposition.

This brings us to the second issue, that of investment returns.  With responsibility for the investment of what, even for those with relatively small pension pots, is still a large sum in nominal terms, zero returns over a period of two decades are both unconscionable and impractical.

The problem is that those with the smallest pots, and thus those in most need of strong investment returns, are precisely those who cannot afford the risk of a significant loss.  For them the attraction of a guaranteed annuity is likely to be proportionately greater, than for someone who is less risk averse.

For people with greater resources, and therefore more flexibility, the option to increase the weighting towards riskier assets increases pretty much exponentially. As alluded to above, this though brings with it the bewildering prospect of how to invest a considerable sum of money for both income and capital appreciation, which is the third issue.

In the past this was usually a fairly straightforward choice between bonds that pay a fixed, but generally low, coupon and equities which offer a variable, but potentially greater, return: or some combination of the two.

However, next year’s pension freedoms will significantly change things.  For a start, it will shortly be theoretically possible to withdraw your entire pension at 55 and invest it (or spend it) outside the traditional suite of pension products.  It is already possible to invest more liberally within a SIPP (self-invested personal pension) or a SSAS (small self-administered scheme), but there are still constraints and total withdrawal is currently a costly option from a tax perspective.

However, relieved of the punishing 55% tax exit fee, some people are intending to withdraw their entire pension pot next year and many appear intent on investing heavily in property.

Whilst I am hardly in a position to counsel against property as an investment, being a landlord myself, there are at least three serious issues that have to be considered first.

1) Tax.  While the 55% Death Tax or Pension Withdrawal Tax is set to be scrapped next year, pension income is nevertheless treated as taxable income, less the 25% tax-free cash sum if applicable.

Thus to withdraw £200,000 from a pension to fund a property investment, even assuming no other income is taken or earned in that year, will cost £49,627.

This is made up as follows:

£50,000 Tax Free Cash Sum

£10,000 Personal Allowance

£31,865 Taxed at the basic rate of 20%  £6,373

£108,135 Taxed at the higher rate of 40% £43,254

Grand Total  £49,627

This actually slightly understates the tax owing as, for simplicity’s sake, I have ignored the fact the the personal allowance is progressively withdrawn for those earning in excess of £100,000.

2) Illiquidity.  While property may yield an income, it is not certain (voids, costs etc) and your capital isn’t easily available for drawdown.

3) Returns.  Contrary to popular belief, buy-to-let investing isn’t generally a massively profitable undertaking.  If it were then many more developers would be building properties specifically to let, rather than selling them on to release their capital.  At the same time, the major source of property investment return for moms and pops is capital appreciation, not rental cash flow.  However, paper profits can only safely be realised by selling the property and, even then, you’ll very likely generate a capital gains tax liability.

The higher returns come from gearing, which is jargon for having a mortgage.  This not only makes your cash go further, but the mortgage interest is also tax deductible.  Someone investing purely for pension income though will very likely not have a mortgage, which will help in terms of cash-flow, but cuts the return on assets employment (i.e. your net rental income compared to your equity in the problem).  Either way though, investors will still need to do their own research to make sure the numbers stack up and that they have a viable business proposition.

I’ll revisit the subject of property as a pension investment in the near future as I know that many of you are interested.  More generally though you can see that the new pension freedoms present people with some very considerable challenges in areas which many have traditionally shied away from.  This is compounded by the advice gap I highlighted in an earlier post, whereby those with less than £250,000 of investable assets can sometimes find it difficult to get expert financial advice at any price.

Take care out there

PensionMan

Read more
Basket
Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow me on Twitter