Posts filed under 'Pension Funding'
If the show's not going so well, start doing the jokes
“Send in the Clowns” is a song from the 1973 musical A Little Night Music. It comes from the theatre idea that if the show is not going well, start doing the jokes.
With local elections taking place tomorrow, all three main parties are fearful of losing voters to the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Until now thought of as a fringe party, it is perhaps not surprising that they have come under increased scrutiny in recent days. Veteran pro-European conservative Ken Clarke has waded into his party’s war of words with UKIP by branding them “a collection of clowns” with no positive policies.
Meanwhile, Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions secretary, has said wealthy elderly people who do not need financial support in the form of the State old age pension, benefits to help with fuel bills, TV licences, or free travel should “hand it back”. I don’t, of course, know how many multi-millionaire pensioners have applied for a bus pass (because you don’t get given one unless you apply) but I suspect not many. The winter fuel allowance is worth between £100 and £300 tax free to help those over state pension age with heating bills, and a free TV licence is worth £145.50 for a colour set for people over age 75.
There is a real risk if you started means testing pensioners that the cost of carrying out the means testing would far outweigh the cost of just paying what are, in effect, minimal benefits. After all, we have one of the least generous State pension arrangements in western Europe and you would not need to employ many administrators before you more than used up the benefit from stopping free television licences for those pensioners over 75 who have a good income.
Ken Clarke’s comment on this was: “I think every pensioner and retired person, like myself, obviously has to make up their own mind about whether they really need it and whether they’re going to give it to some worthwhile cause.” It’s a bit like some big companies I could mention, plus the odd comedian, deciding whether they want to pay tax.
Then, of course, we have seen the coalition government reduce the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowances on the amount you can put into pensions to an all-time low, and the Department for Work and Pensions is still banging on about complicated GMP equalisation, which will cost a lot to administer and achieve relatively little. In addition, the introduction of automatic enrolment stumbles on with the amounts being contributed to automatic enrolment schemes woefully inadequate to produce a decent pension in defined contribution arrangements. And while we are at it, every time we get a Budget or Autumn Statement there are more rumours from the Treasury about further attacks on pensions.
Send in the clowns… don’t bother, they’re here!
Fraser Smart
Managing Director, Europe
Buck Consultants
The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent Buck’s positions, strategies or opinions.
- “Predators stalk your pension”, warns The Pensions Regulator
I recently had a text message from one of these organisations offering me the opportunity to liberate my pension. Tempted to reply? I might have been, if I had been an ordinary member of the public and didn’t know it was a scam.
It came on the day after news broke that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) had banned a lead generation company from sending unsolicited text messages offering pensions liberation to consumers. The ASA found the messages were sent unsolicited and did not reveal the identity of the marketer and thus broke the appropriate advertising code.
There has been an increased focus on pensions liberation schemes this year. With all the regulators taking increased interest in pensions liberation activity. The Pensions Regulator has also launched a highly visible awareness campaign with literature featuring a large picture of a scorpion on the front and headings such as “Predators stalk your pension”. If you are sent an unsolicited message think of the scorpion.
Unfortunately this year has seen a significant increase in companies singling out savers and claiming they can help you cash your pension early. There are limited cases where it is possible, but the vast majority of such claims will turn out to be bogus with serious tax consequences for you. You should be particularly suspicious if you are approached out of the blue over the telephone or via a text message. The best advice is to simply not reply and never give out personal information or financial information to a cold caller. Remember if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Never rush into a pension transfer, for if you make a transfer to a pension liberation arrangement, even in good faith, you are risking tax charges and penalties of more than half the value of your pension savings. The only people getting rich are the fraudsters and you will get an unpleasant tax bill.
I know of cases where we have tried to warn individuals off pension liberators, and they have come back to us to say they have rung up their dodgy advisers and have been assured that all is well or there is a legal loophole and so they want to go ahead. There are some people you just cannot help. If you have been tempted by one of these offers don’t accept the assurances of those involved in the transaction, get the advice of an independent IFA who is not involved in the transaction and not linked to the organisation offering you the deal. In some cases, checking addresses of advisers and schemes on Google Maps Street View should start alarm bells ringing. If the premises looks dodgy, or is it obviously a mail box company, ask yourself why! And what are the odds if the money disappears of getting it back?
Pensions liberation has never been more in the spotlight and, if you have been unlucky enough to make an illegal transfer, the odds of the tax man not finding out have never been smaller. I know that Buck is in almost daily contact with one regulator or another over pensions liberation matters.
I am, I understand, in good company. The Pensions Minister Steve Webb received a similar text message not so long ago. It’s never been easier for villains to contact vast numbers of potential “marks” using your phone or by text, and in every thousand there is always going to be one who bends down to see what that is in the sand.
Fraser Smart
Managing Director, Europe
Buck Consultants
The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent Buck’s positions, strategies or opinions.
Love it or hate it
Marmite is a spread made from yeast extract, a by-product of beer brewing
Marmite is a spread made from yeast extract, a by-product of beer brewing. The British version is a sticky and dark brown with a distinctive, powerful flavour, which is extremely salty. This distinctive taste is reflected in the British company’s marketing slogan: “Love it or hate it.”
According to an article in the professional press, up to 20 million employees will, in the future, receive a lower state pension because they will not receive accrual based on the earnings-linked state second pension (S2P). We don’t know just how many, and I suspect you have no idea if you are one of them. The state pension system in the UK is hideously complicated (and far from generous) and most people do not have the faintest idea of what they are supposed to be getting. The proposed new level state pension of £144 per week is being introduced largely without a murmur of discontent. Basically the 20 million employees potentially adversely affected, and who will be worse off in retirement, are not aware they are being robbed.
We stand on the very brink of the greatest change in the state pension system for generations. But do not be fooled into thinking the changes being introduced are being done because the new system is necessarily better, or more generous. A flat rate state pension is necessary if workers are going to be persuaded to go along with automatic enrolment. Automatic enrolment is aimed at the lower paid and the idea is that people save more for their retirement and do not have to rely on state hand-outs.
It’s not that the government is seeking to make them better off in retirement , it’s just trying to ensure the government’s bill for looking after the low paid is reduced. It is terrified that large numbers of workers will reach old age and be below subsistence level, and it (the government) may have to foot the bill. Currently, if a pensioner’s income is below a certain level, not un-associated with £144 per week, then means tested benefits are going to be payable to top things up.
So, in introducing a flat rate pension the government is reducing its means tested benefit payments and ensuring that those who make payments under an automatic enrolment scheme have something, however little, more than the £144 per week. However, the 20 million employees who will be worse off in retirement, and not the government, are paying for this. I certainly do not want to have to try and live on a total of £144 per week, do you?
Now the new state pension arrangement was going to come into effect in April 2017, but the Government has just announced this is being brought forward a year. So, one year’s worth of retirees will receive the flat rate pension early. Will they all be better off? No, of course they won’t. They will need a 35 year NI record, rather than the current 30 year record, to get the full flat rate pension. One person who will be £5 billion better off is the Chancellor because National Insurance contributions will go up that much a year earlier with the abolition of S2P. Nearly 7 million people will see their National Insurance contributions rise dramatically a year early. I have no doubt that this was not the reason the Chancellor is bringing forward the measures by a year!
As the current state system is so complicated, and because I would like to see automatic enrolment (however imperfect it is) make a difference, I don’t actually disagree with the idea of a flat rate state pension. I could argue that it ought to be higher, and that it compares terribly against the state system in most western European countries I could name, but at least it is certain – provided you have a 35 year NI record. But depending on whether you are a winner or loser then I suspect, a bit like Marmite, you are going to love it or hate it. Always assuming that the losers realise their pocket has been picked.
I suspect the Chancellor likes Marmite.
Fraser Smart
Managing Director, Europe
Buck Consultants
The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent Buck’s positions, strategies or opinions.
Running out of money in old age is not a laughing matter
I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don’t want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment. – The Illustrated Woody Allen Reader (1993)
People are afraid to face how great a part of life is dependent on luck. It’s scary to think so much is out of one’s control. With this thought in mind I was interested to read a Blog last year by Bendzulla Actuarial Pty Ltd, an Australian actuarial practice company.
“Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.” - Woody Allen
They pointed out that in order to plan for our retirement we need to know now how long we are going to live and, therefore, how long our money needs to last. This is certainly true where we are relying on an annuity purchased from a defined contribution arrangement. The starting point is perhaps to look at actuarial tables which give an indication of life expectancy for someone of our age and sex.
I have not used Australian tables but have produced a table below of the life expectancy from age 65 for someone who is now aged 45, 55 or 65 and living in the UK i.e. I have ignored the probability of dying before age 65.
Life expectancies, including mortality improvements:
| Age now |
Male |
Female |
| 45 |
88 |
90 |
| 55 |
86 |
89 |
| 65 |
85 |
88 |
I have included likely mortality improvements in the table as existing data is useful, but it has its limitations. It represents data based on people who have already passed away. So, if you are a male aged 65 taking your pension today, you might be tempted to plan for needing enough money to last you for 20 years. But, in my view, you would be wrong to do so. The tables show us as an average we are expecting just over 50% of people in their age bracket to live longer than their life expectancy in the table. Thus, if you are a 65 year old male today, you stand at least a 50% chance of living past 85.
Therefore, if you planned your retirement on living for 20 years, you have a 50% chance of running out of money before you die. So how long should you plan your retirement for, and how much of a gambler are you on your ability to beat the odds? Bendzulla suggests that you should look at the age that only 10% of your current age group will reach. You will thus have a 90% chance of your money not running out and only a 10% chance of outliving your funds. It’s not an unreasonable suggestion. The table below gives the new figures.
‘10% age’ life expectancies
| Age now |
10% Age Male |
10% Age Female |
| 45 |
99 |
102 |
| 55 |
98 |
100 |
| 65 |
97 |
99 |
Thus a male aged 65 today should plan to live until the age of 97, rather than 85 as in the original table. Sufficient money for a further 12 years of life is, therefore, needed. This makes a huge difference to the amount of money that an individual needs to put away pre-retirement and the amount of time over which he will need to save to achieve the extra funds. Either that or hire a Sicilian Actuary, who can not only tell you when you are going to die but how!
As Woody Allen also said: “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.”
Fraser Smart
Managing Director, Europe
Buck Consultants
The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent Buck’s positions, strategies or opinions.
No ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card!
It’s been said that you can tell Monopoly is an old game as there is a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail
Monopoly is an American-originated board game named after the economic concept of monopoly — the domination of a market by a single entity. The ultimate goal being to drive your opponents into bankruptcy.
It’s been said that you can tell Monopoly is an old game as there is a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail. Wikipedia records: “other strategies may include exploitation of the game’s rules, or loopholes that aren’t necessarily addressed by the rules”.
Possibly going directly to jail, along with her former husband Chris Huhne, is his ex-wife Vicky Pryce, who was today found guilty of lying to the police in taking his speeding points some 10 years ago. It seems that is one “loophole” which is at least addressed by the rules.
The matter was brought to light by Vicky Pryce after Chris Huhne left her for another woman. Last week, in Chris Huhne’s former constituency of Eastleigh, it was UK Independence Party who won second prize in the beauty contest.
Rich people definitely going to jail this week include disgraced former tax expert and ex- president of the Association of Taxation Technicians Andrew Meeson. In Birmingham Crown Court, he and his former business associate Peter Spencer Bradley were found guilty of a £5m pension tax fraud linked with two alleged pension liberation cases. Meeson, who through T12 administration was the administrator of the Pennines and Mendip Returement Benefits Schemes, had already witnessed the Pensions Regulator’s powers when it removed both pension scheme trustees and replaced them with a Regulator appointed trustee.
The Pensions Regulator was one of a number of regulatory bodies who last month announced a crackdown on pension liberation fraudsters who target those in financial difficulties and encourage them to transfer their benefits to schemes run by the fraudsters in return for loans or cash. If you are contacted by text or cold call and advised you can “liberate” all or part of your pension arrangement through a legal loophole, you would be best advised to remember that if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.
And asking someone to take your speeding points for you is also not a good idea, even ten years later it can result in you going to jail.
Fraser Smart
Managing Director, Europe
Buck Consultants
The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent Buck’s positions, strategies or opinions.
Are you getting a fair return on your beans?
The Pensions Minister Steve Webb last week reiterated his opposition to a cap on pension scheme charges unless, in his words, people are being enrolled into poor value pension schemes. He said there was no need for the Government to set a cap as there was currently a lot of choice in the market. He cited the “baked bean test” and said “Why doesn’t the government set a price cap on a tin of baked beans? We don’t need to because there’s a vibrant market, people have lots of choice.”
Pensions Minister Steve Webb: "Why doesn’t the government set a price cap on a tin of baked beans? We don’t need to because there’s a vibrant market, people have lots of choice."
The Pensions Minister said it would also be difficult to determine what level any charge cap should be set at. Stakeholder schemes had a cap of 1.5%, but if someone were paying charges of 1.5% today they would be upset if someone else was only paying charges of 0.5%. Yet 1.5% seemed reasonable when the now largely defunct stakeholder regime was introduced. The Pensions Minister said signs at the moment were encouraging, and charges are reducing to a level that 10 years ago would not have been dreamt of. I shudder every time issue of pension scheme charges surfaces, because it’s a bad argument, and misses the real problems behind defined contribution pension schemes. Don’t get me wrong, I am a keen advocate of fee transparency, and that providers must be up front about the fees they are charging. But that is only a tiny part of the issue. What you get back from a defined contribution scheme depends on a number of factors. Fees taken out of your pot by providers is one issue. However your eventual income in retirement is dependent on the amount you and your employer pay in, the period over which you make payments, the return on the investment of your pot over the years and vitally what “pension” you can buy with your pot on retirement.
I might not be upset about paying 1.5% of my pot each year in charges if my pot is rising at 5% a year, whilst my neighbour who is only paying 0.5% in charges is getting a 2% return. But leaving aside the jealousy bit, about someone getting a better rate of charges or return than me, the big issue at the moment is what my pot will buy me in retirement. Generally in the UK a defined contribution pension scheme member must buy an annuity at retirement to provide him or her with a pension for life.
There are very few financial instruments with a history as long as annuities. The word derives from Roman times and comes from the Latin “annuus” meaning recurring annually. The frequency in which stipends were paid to Roman citizens and soldiers in return for military service or financial contributions to Rome. Annuities even pre-date baked beans. The problem is that annuities in the UK are at an all-time low. So however much you saved, over whatever period, and however low the charges, and however high the return, people retiring today are getting a raw deal. They are getting nowhere near as many beans as previous generations of retirees.
Recent research suggest the pension you could get from a pension pot of £100,000 has halved in the past 18 years. A story in the Mail which caught my eye, and which accords with what I am seeing, says that a 65 year old man wanting a fixed pension (not inflation linked) and with no spouse’s pension could have got £11,380 a year in January 1995, but would get just £4,920 today, a staggering 57% decrease. So, as the Pensions Minister suggests, while provider charges are falling to levels not dreamt of 10 years ago, returns on your pension pot have taken a similar nosedive. I realise that there are a number of reasons for the reduction. In particular over the 18 years people are living longer, but 57% is a big drop. If the size of your baked bean can dropped by 57% there might be a similar sort of backlash at supermarkets as if horse had been found in your burgers.
The Mail article gives as an example a 65 year old man who retired on a £7,000 a year (single life, with no spouse’s pension) annuity in January 2008. If he had a younger brother who retired today he would only get £4,920 a year. Would there really be that much difference in the life expectancy of two brothers 5 years apart or other good reasons for this difference. Moreover, if this brother on £4,920 dies at age 45 he will not even get the amount he put into his pension pot (£100,000) back. Much as I enjoy having a pop at providers for providing poor value it is far too simplistic just to blame them. They find themselves in an impossible position, for at the moment they have to buy low yielding assets which lead to poor rates because the alternative requires them to hold much more risk capital on which they can generally make a better return elsewhere.
The Financial Services Authority announced last week they are to launch an inquiry into the £11bn annuity market amid concerns that pensioners are not getting a good deal. The investigation should concentrate not on the overall level of annuities, albeit they are at an all-time low, because providers can do little about that currently. It should focus on how annuities are advertised, and making sure pensioners get the best available deal at any given time (and shop around) rather than just taking the deal offered by their current insurer. The insurers who have offered worse rates to their long standing loyal customers and relied on their inertia to make bigger profits must be in no doubt that the Financial Services Authority is onto them. In this time of historic low annuity rates, all that can be possibly done needs to be done to make sure each pensioner gets the best possible deal at the time he/she retires.
The even worse news is that with gender neutral pricing and Solvency II hanging in the background, as a result of our European friends’ actions, annuity rates could fall even lower. There are some pensions professionals suggesting rates will at best stay at current record lows for some time. Let us hope in the above example there is not an even younger brother, because his only hope is B&Q!
One of the biggest problems with annuities is that it’s a once in a lifetime deal, once you have purchased an annuity you cannot swap annuity provider later on if rates dramatically improve. We gave up Latin in this country some time ago and unless something can be done about annuity rates soon, I think it’s time to put annuities as well as beans on toast.
Fraser Smart
Managing Director, Europe
Buck Consultants
The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent Buck’s positions, strategies or opinions.
Much ado about nothing
Everything that consumers buy has a price, which may change over time. The Retail Prices Index (RPI) and the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) are designed to measure such changes. The traditional way of viewing these indices is to envisage a shopping basket comprising all the different kinds of goods 
and services bought by a typical household. As the prices of individual items in this basket change, the total cost of the basket will also change. CPI and RPI are measures of average inflation, based on average household expenditure on the items in the shopping basket. As such, they do not measure the cost of living, rather, changes in the prices of goods and services consumed by households. The basis upon which the two indices are calculated are different and this has led to CPI generally being lower than RPI.
RPI has been an official measure of inflation for over 50 years, while CPI was only introduced in 1996. In the past sixteen years, there has been a general switch from RPI to CPI, covering items such as the UK inflation target, and the indexation of many pension scheme benefits. However, RPI continues to be used as the inflation measure for numerous purposes.
As part of a programme of work to maintain the quality of the statistics, the National Statistician consulted about aspects of the methodology used to calculate RPI in October 2012. There were four options on the table: three of them would have resulted in the gap between RPI and CPI being reduced. In the event, the decision was made to make no change to the way RPI is calculated – a huge surprise despite overwhelming support for its retention. The Government has today made it clear it was not a party to the decision making process.
The decision not to make any change is good news for pensioners. The current low interest rate environment and recent bouts of quantitative easing have done recipients of pensions in payment few favours. Effectively reducing RPI to bring it more into line with CPI would have only exacerbated these problems.
Many private sector pension schemes have still retained RPI as the measure of indexation for at least some groups of members and will probably be in two minds about this announcement. On the one hand, making RPI less expensive would have benefited such schemes, in terms of reducing liabilities, with many sponsors having already started to think about making future funding plans assuming a change would be made. It will be little comfort that they can now neatly avoid public relations issues with disgruntled members, who could have seen their benefits increasing more slowly than before.
Something about pensions isn’t changing – now there’s a novelty.
Fraser Smart
Managing Director, Europe
Buck Consultants
Government suggests reading the small print
Prime Minister David Cameron used 
a very well-known advertising slogan to sum up the state of the coalition government half way through its five year term. He said, “It is a Ronseal deal – it does what it says on the tin”.
What David Cameron was actually saying is we are doing what we promised. However today we learn, not for the first time, he might be recalling the tin. The 2010 Conservative pledge to protect universal pensioner benefits, including free television licences and bus passes is unlikely to be repeated at the next election. In addition the Government is floating the idea of stopping winter fuel payments to pensioners living in Spain, Greece, Cyprus, and other warm countries.
The Government having come out on the wrong side of an European Court of Justice case, to stop those UK pensioners living in Europe having the winter fuel allowance, are looking for ways of getting round the judgment and clawing back relatively small amounts from ex-pats who spend the winter somewhere warmer than Bournemouth. They are considering introducing a “temperature test”. Not on the pensioners themselves, but on the environment in which they are living. In 2011/12 the average daily winter temperature in the UK was 7.5 degrees centigrade whilst in Cyprus it was 16 degrees centigrade. Setting a temperature test of say 10 degrees centigrade could save much of the £13m of fuel allowance paid out to the pensioners living in Europe last year. Although you would not claw back any money from those expats living in Eire or Germany.
Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that wealthy pensioners are the one group that has not been affected by the austerity programme as a whole. He obviously does not rate MPs as a “group”. Wealthy pensioners should clearly be concerned that the Government has them on its radar now it has voted through real term cuts to working age benefits. What is meant by “wealthy” has yet to be defined. The fact that these “wealthy” pensioners may well have paid more than their fair share in taxes throughout their working lives was not mentioned, nor was the fact that some of those who winter in warmer climates could not be described as rich and may be doing so for family or health reasons.
Still, this is all a bit academic for most of the next generations of pensioners who, in no small part due to various Government policies over the years, are unlikely to fall under any definition of “wealthy”. Prudential’s Class of 2013 survey shows pensioners’ predicted retirement incomes have decreased for the second year in a row, with individuals retiring this year expecting an average annual income of just £15,300. There is not much chance of them wintering in Bournemouth let alone Benidorm.
However, in the future and with a tail wind auto-enrolment might get wintering pensioners as far south as the Isle of Wight.
Meanwhile I am off to buy a tin of Ronseal and look for the small print that says “This Government intends to make constant attacks on pensions and pensioners”.
Fraser Smart
Managing Director, Europe
Buck Consultants
This is my opinion and is not necessarily shared by Buck Consultants.
Should one consider pardoning Guy Fawkes!
Well it’s beginning to look as if the Mayans got their dates wrong and the total destruction of the earth is postponed, at least for the time being. With that in mind I decided to squeeze in one final slightly tongue in cheek blog for 2012. Professor Brian Cox predicted that the universe will end in a hundred billion, billion, billion years’ time so the Mayans may, like George Osborne, have to revise their figures.
However, whilst we are all alive and well, 
we are beginning to see proof that the Chancellor has destroyed any hope of reinvigorating pensions. And I am left wondering how many people in the UK will be able to retire in the next hundred billion, billion, billion years.
Research out last week shows that 83% of advisers are encouraging their clients to supplement their pension with other retirement savings vehicles resulting from the changes announced in the Autumn Statement. In addition, 66% said they believed the decisions taken by the Chancellor to cut the Annual and Lifetime Allowances has undermined the public’s confidence in pensions. This comes as no surprise to pensions experts who tried to make the Chancellor understand that further raiding of the pensions piggy bank was short termism at its worst. What was the point in one part of the Government liaising with the pensions industry and producing a paper on reinvigorating pensions for the Treasury to do what it did a few days later?
“The belief that Government is unwilling to listen or respond to responsible arguments is destroying morale and confidence in the future,” according to Maura McGowan QC the Chairman of the Bar discussing reforms to the legal profession, although she could equally have been talking about pensions. If you are going to buy any of these a jig saw for Christmas, send it to the Queen, because the rest of them don’t do “joined up”!
Her Majesty may be wondering if it’s too late now to pardon Guy Fawkes or deciding how to react to the Prime Minister’s comment “This is fun, your place next time!”
Fraser Smart
Managing Director, Europe
Buck Consultants
State pension reform
This is the last blog you will ever see from me. Well, at least according to the Mayan calendar it will be, because according to the Mayans the world is going to end tomorrow.
We are still awaiting the promised white paper on state pension reform promised before Christmas. So the Government is going to have to get a move on, especially if the Mayans are right.
The Government is known to be considering plans for a universal state pension of around £140 a week. Under the current system a single person gets a pension of £96 a week. A range of extras are meant to guarantee a minimum weekly income of £132.60 but due to the complexity of the rules many people do not receive this.
The introduction of the £140 per week universal state pension is supposed to be on a cost neutral basis, so there have to be as many losers as there are winners, which is politically awkward for the Government.
The Government might of course issue the paper on Christmas Eve. It would then be old news by the new year.
However if the Mayans are right they may not have to issue it at all, and we are all going to look pretty silly tomorrow. But if not I will be back with a new blog in the first week of January.
Fraser Smart
Managing Director, Europe
Buck Consultants
Previous Posts
Brazil
Canada
Netherlands
United Kingdom
United States/Global