Crackerjack Greenback Prudent Advice for a Prosperous Future

February 19, 2009

Rethinking Retirement

Filed under: Contentment,Earning,Goals,Retirement Planning,Values — Paul Williams @ Crackerjack Greenback @ 11:36 am

       Mike at The Oblivious Investor has a thought-provoking article today titled Don’t Retire., which was inspired by Stephen Pollan and Mark Levine’s book Die Broke: A Radical Four-Part Financial Plan. Mike discusses why retirement as we imagine it today is probably an unreachable goal for most Baby Boomers and subsequent generations. Given the fact that many workers no longer receive pensions and don’t seem to be very good at saving on their own, I’d have to agree.

The History of Retirement

       The idea of retiring when you’re older is relatively new. It only seems to have become popular in the last century. There are several possible explanations for this, but the most likely ones are higher incomes (we enjoy a standard of living about eight times higher than Americans a century ago) and the creation of Social Security and pension programs (though the future of Social Security is unclear, and pensions are largely a thing of the past). If you’d like to read more about the history of retirement, I suggest these articles:

Economic History of Retirement in the United States (a more academic article)
The History of Retirement, From Early Man to A.A.R.P. (not quite as dry as the first)

       The truth is, retirement was never really an option for our earlier ancestors. They didn’t have very long lives or the economic systems we have today. We also find no discussion of retirement in the Bible as we think of it today. There is one reference to the priests (Levites) retiring at age 50 from temple service, but they were to stay on to help the younger men (probably in giving advice and guidance). The only other semblance of retirement we see in the Bible is old men sitting at the city gate. The city gate was a place of honor, and those who sat there offered advice and counsel to those in the city. Again, the older people didn’t really retire but found other ways to serve their communities. Instead of working, they lived with their children and received support from them. But that’s rare today (unless you’re Amish).

How Should Christians View Retirement Today?

       Given the nature of the labor force today and the interaction of families, we do need to be saving for a time when we won’t be able to produce as much income as we can when we’re younger. Children are moving farther away from their parents for jobs or other reasons than they did in the past (or in the Bible). Several generations of a family living in the same house or very close to each other is no longer the norm. And the complication of health problems and other issues when you’re older can definitely impact your ability to earn income.

       However, the American view of retirement is far from God’s ideal for His followers. How does spending every day on the golf course, or sipping sweet tea on the back porch every day, or traveling the world for pleasure glorify God? The work of the kingdom of God is never ending. By focusing our entire lives on a retirement where we sit around, do whatever we want, and relax, we miss the picture of what God could be calling us to do when we no longer have to work as much to earn all of our money. On the other hand, a Christian retirement focused on contentment and serving God can allow for some leisure (just as during your working years) without neglecting the valuable work we can do to further God’s kingdom and show His love to the world.

       22 Then, turning to his disciples, Jesus said, “That is why I tell you not to worry about everyday life-whether you have enough food to eat or enough clothes to wear. 23 For life is more than food, and your body more than clothing. 24 Look at the ravens. They don’t plant or harvest or store food in barns, for God feeds them. And you are far more valuable to him than any birds! 25 Can all your worries add a single moment to your life? 26 And if worry can’t accomplish a little thing like that, what’s the use of worrying over bigger things?

       27 “Look at the lilies and how they grow. They don’t work or make their clothing, yet Solomon in all his glory was not dressed as beautifully as they are. 28 And if God cares so wonderfully for flowers that are here today and thrown into the fire tomorrow, he will certainly care for you. Why do you have so little faith?

       29 “And don’t be concerned about what to eat and what to drink. Don’t worry about such things. 30 These things dominate the thoughts of unbelievers all over the world, but your Father already knows your needs. 31 Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and he will give you everything you need.

Luke 12:22-31 (NLT)

       We are not to seek a life that’s merely full of the pleasures of this world. God calls us to seek His kingdom first. When we put our focus on God and trust in Him, we no longer have to worry about our retirement accounts, government policies, economic disasters, or any other worries. When we have the glorious gift of Jesus Christ, we remain wealthy despite what happens to us in this life. We have riches that cannot fail, that cannot disappear, and that will never leave us—even after death.

A Different Retirement

       I’m not saying you should stop saving and investing for the future. There will most likely come a time when you will not be able to earn all the money necessary to cover your needs. It is prudent and wise to save for such a time, and the Bible commends and encourages such wisdom. But you should rethink your hopes of buying that second home, taking luxury cruises three times a year, or endless rounds of golf during retirement.

       A Christian can most definitely follow God’s teaching and will if they save up for retirement and reduce or eliminate their workload. But a Christian retirement should be focused on meeting your needs (not extravagant needs, but your daily bread—just enough) and then using your abundance of time to do God’s work. Minister to the needy, volunteer more, visit the sick and those in prison, comfort those in mourning, reach out to those on the margins of society, pray and study God’s Word—these are all wonderful activities to fill a Christian retirement. But seeking a permanent vacation, a time when you do little that is useful or glorifies God, is only a product of greed, selfishness, and the World—it is a tool used by Satan to distract you from furthering God’s kingdom. Flee from it, and seek God’s counsel for your older years. Ask Him to guide you and show you His ways so that you can continue to glorify Him.

The Results

       This new view of retirement has profound implications for your life—now and when you’re older.

  • You no longer need to be obsessed with saving and investing all of your money. You’re free to be extremely generous—following God’s teaching on giving. You won’t have to save as much, but you should still save prudently.
  • You will avoid the depression that often comes at retirement. Many workers realize they actually enjoyed the interaction with their coworkers or the public and feel lost after they retire.
  • You’re free to do work that you enjoy even though it may not pay well. You don’t have to run after the highest paying job just so you can secure the retirement you’re told to dream about.
  • You don’t need to be a workaholic. You can focus on family and serving God during your working years—glorifying God much more than if you spent 80+ hours a week working. This also leaves you with more time to develop your relationship with God.

       Seeking a retirement where you can glorify God even more than you did while you were working brings you much closer to God than a retirement where you spend every day out on the boat. I challenge you to reconsider your ideas about retirement. Rethink retirement, and pray for God to show you what His will is for the later years of your life. Let God transform and renew your mind—clearing out the messages the World and Satan have planted in there and putting His teaching and will in your heart. Then plan and save for a retirement that glorifies God.

P.S. Yesterday marked Crackerjack Greenback’s 100th post! I’ve had 7,044 visitors and 193 comments since November 2008. Thank you for reading and visiting! If you’ve enjoyed what you’ve read so far, please tell your family and friends about Crackerjack Greenback!

January 8, 2009

Simple Ways to Keep More of Your Money in 2009

Filed under: Budgeting,Insurance,Retirement Planning,Saving Money,Taxes — Paul Williams @ Crackerjack Greenback @ 4:00 am

This is a guest post from Trisha Wagner. Please take a minute to check out her bio at the end of this article.

       Did the state of the economy last year leave you wondering what 2009 might have in store for your finances? Are you, like the rest of the world, resolved to make some changes to keep more money safely in your pocket or at least your savings account this year? Here are a few simple, yet successful ways to cut your expenses and save more money in the months ahead.

  • File a new W-4 Form – Are you anticipating a tax refund for 2008? If so, it is time to adjust your withholding to match your tax liability. While it is a natural reaction to look forward to that “lump sum” payment from Uncle Sam, couldn’t you make better use of your money EACH month throughout the year? Locate a withholding calculator online to calculate the correct amount of withholding, and file a new W-4 today.
  • Bump up your retirement contributions – Don’t let the recent months deter you from continuing to contribute to your 401(k) or other tax favorable retirement accounts. 2009 brings increased limits for 401(k) contributions allowing up to $16,500 with an additional $5,500 permitted if you are or will be 50 or older by the end of the year. If you can’t or don’t want to contribute the maximum amount you should contribute at least enough to kick in the employer match.
  • Open an online savings account – With so many banking options available to you today, take a few moments and research the options available online. In some cases you can open a savings account with just $1 with no monthly fees or minimum balance requirements. While you are at it, set up a direct transfer from your checking account so that you don’t even have to “think” about saving money since it will be automatically deducted into your savings account. Remember, if you do an automatic transfer from your bank account you will need to mark the deductions accordingly to avoid mistakes that can lead to costly overdraft fees.
  • Raise your insurance deductibles – This tip is fairly straight forward—raise your deductibles on your auto and home owners insurance and see a reduction in your yearly premium putting money back in your pocket. [Paul says: This is a great tip, but make sure you have enough in savings to cover the increased deductible.]
  • Get a grip on your spending – If you still do not have a budget in place for your household finances, you really have to get on the ball to see savings in the new year. This advice has been told over and over again from all financial mediums, yet I’ve spoken to people who really don’t have any idea how much money they have or where it is going. You simply cannot cut costs if you don’t know where your dollars are going in the first place. Fortunately there are many online tools available that can calculate your spending for you making it easier to see where you can begin to cut back to save some cash.
  • Ditch your debt – This is great advice any time of year, but especially important during a rough economy. Credit card companies are tightening the reins on available credit and increasing the penalties for any transgression such as going over your credit limit or paying late. If you have previously faltered on your goal to reduce your debt now is the time to re-focus and implement an aggressive plan to get out of debt.

Trisha Wagner is a freelance writer for DestroyDebt.com, a debt community featuring debt forums. Trisha writes regularly on the topics of getting out of debt and personal finance.

December 22, 2008

Comparison of the Diversified Portfolios

Filed under: Diversified Portfolios,Investing,Retirement Planning — Paul Williams @ Crackerjack Greenback @ 2:52 pm

       In the last post of my series on a closer look at a diversified portfolio, reader Nick asked if I could do a summary post comparing all the portfolios. I’m quite happy to oblige as it was something I was hoping to do anyway.

       First, let’s look at the historical performance and risk of all the portfolios. The chart below shows the average (arithmetic mean) return and standard deviation (a measure of risk) for each of the portfolios starting with the 100% Stock portfolio down to the 0% Stock (100% Bond) portfolio. The data used was from the time period of 1927 to 2007.

Historical Return and Volatility of Portfolios - Small

       We can clearly see that as you have a higher percentage in stocks your return goes up—but so does your risk. This is called the risk vs. return trade-off. A higher return generally means higher risk is involved, and lower risk generally means you’re going to get a lower return.

       The average return doesn’t really tell us much as we’ll probably never actually get the average return in any given year. Investment returns fluctuate, so it’s nice to see the range of returns we would have experienced in each portfolio. This next chart shows exactly that. For each portfolio, I’ve charted the highest, average, and lowest return over the 1927-2007 time period.

Portfolio Return Ranges (One Year) - Small

       Again, that’s all fine and dandy but it still doesn’t tell us much. When we invest, we generally don’t have a one year time frame so we shouldn’t be looking at single year returns. Most of the goals we invest for have time frames of 5, 15, or 30+ years. What we really want to know is how our returns will look over those time periods. How likely is our portfolio to lose money over 5, 15, or 30 years? What’s the lowest return the portfolio has experienced over a 30 year period? Those are the questions we should really be asking.

       To answer those types of questions, we have to look at things a little differently. For starters, we can’t use the average return over a 30 year period to figure out what the portfolio would have done. Because investment returns compound and vary each year, we have to use the geometric mean (click to learn more). This is also called an annualized return. It basically means that your return over a given time period would be like getting the annualized return every year—except that never actually happens in reality because investment returns vary from year to year.

       For example, an annualized return of 10% over a 5 year period means that $1,000 would have grown to $1,610.51. But your actual returns could have been very different. One 5 year period might have returns of 9%, -15%, 8%, 16%, and 39% while another 5 year period might have returns of 14%, 12%, -5%, 8%, and 23%. The average return for these periods was 11.4% and 10.4%, respectively, but you still would have ended up with about $1,610.51 in both of those 5 year periods.

       To really see the effect that time has on reducing our risk of losing money, we’ll have to keep the scale on the charts the same. So each chart has a highest return of 100% and a lowest return of -60%, even though none of the results actually go to those extremes. Let’s look again at the chart for the one year periods, then I’ll show you the 5 year, 15 year, and 30 year charts without interruption so you can really compare them all.

Portfolio Return Ranges (One Year) - Small

Portfolio Return Ranges (Five Year) - Small

Portfolio Return Ranges (Fifteen Year) - Small

Portfolio Return Ranges (Thirty Year) - Smalll

       Wow, that last chart is really bunched up isn’t it? What does that tell us? The longer we leave our money invested, the more likely it is we’ll get a result closer to the average. If you’re invested heavily in stocks, it also means that you’re more likely to get much higher than average returns as well. This is why you should be invested in a 100% Stock portfolio if you have more than 20-25 years until retirement, and it’s why you should probably have at least 70-80% in stocks until you actually do retire. By leaving most of your money in stocks for a long time, you increase your chances of getting the high returns you need while decreasing your chances of getting very low returns (for the entire time period your money is invested). Yes, you’ll have more volatility, but that won’t matter if your portfolio has grown large enough to exceed your needs.

       So do you want to see what those returns were like over the 30 year periods? The chart below is zoomed in with a better scale so you can really see the results.

Portfolio Return Ranges (Thirty Year) Zoomed In - Small

       Look closely at the data for that 100% Stock portfolio. The worst annualized return you would have had over a 30 year period was about 8.5%. Even if you invested just as the Great Depression was getting underway, you still would have made 8.5% a year over 30 years. That’s pretty amazing, and it’s exactly why we need to block out the noise from the financial media. Ignore the short term, invest in index funds, and go about living your life and enjoying your family and friends instead of watching the stock market all the time!

December 19, 2008

A Closer Look at a Diversified 100% Bond (0% Stock) Portfolio

Filed under: Diversified Portfolios,Investing,Retirement Planning — Paul Williams @ Crackerjack Greenback @ 3:30 am

       In my example of what a diversified portfolio looks like, I used a 70% Stock portfolio as an illustration. To save you the time and math, I’ve started a series of posts that look at a range of diversified portfolios from 100% Stock to 0% Stock. I’ll break these portfolios down in 10% increments. Today we’ll take a closer look at a 100% Bond (0% Stock) portfolio.

       Here’s a pie chart depicting the asset allocation for a diversified 100% Bond portfolio:

Allocation for 100% Bond Portfolio - Small

       Click here to learn how to invest in a diversified 100% Bond portfolio. Keep in mind that you’ll need $6,000 to meet the fund minimums for this particular portfolio. If you invest at Vanguard, the total expense ratio for this portfolio would be 0.18%.

       Here’s a chart showing the historical returns for this portfolio from 1927-2007:

Historical Returns for 100% Bond Portfolio - Small

Now for some quick facts about this 100% Bond portfolio:

  • The highest calendar year return for this portfolio was 19.5% in 1982.
  • The lowest calendar year return for this portfolio was -2.3% in 1956.
  • From 1927 to 2007, the average annual return for a diversified 100% Bond portfolio was 4.9%.
  • This 100% Bond portfolio never lost money during any consecutive 3 year period from 1927 to 2007.

       I would never recommend that anyone with a long-term time horizon invest in a 100% Bond portfolio. You get a much better return for very little additional risk by using a 20% Stock portfolio instead. That extra 20% of stock really does help to increase your return and long-term results significantly.

       If you have a short-term (< 5 years away) goal that you'd like to save for, I recommend using a high-yield savings account or U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS). These will enable you to save for your goal while earning a reasonable interest rate with little to no risk.

December 18, 2008

A Closer Look at a Diversified 10% Stock Portfolio

Filed under: Diversified Portfolios,Investing,Retirement Planning — Paul Williams @ Crackerjack Greenback @ 3:30 am

       In my example of what a diversified portfolio looks like, I used a 70% Stock portfolio as an illustration. To save you the time and math, I’ve started a series of posts that look at a range of diversified portfolios from 100% Stock to 0% Stock. I’ll break these portfolios down in 10% increments. Today we’ll take a closer look at a 10% Stock portfolio.

       Here’s a pie chart depicting the asset allocation for a diversified 10% Stock portfolio:

Allocation for 10% Stock Portfolio - Small

       Click here to learn how to invest in a diversified 10% Stock portfolio. Keep in mind that you’ll need $375,000 to meet the fund minimums for this particular portfolio. If you invest at Vanguard, the total expense ratio for this portfolio would be 0.19%.

       Here’s a chart showing the historical returns for this portfolio from 1927-2007:

Historical Returns for 10% Stock Portfolio - Small

Now for some quick facts about this 10% Stock portfolio:

  • The highest calendar year return for this portfolio was 18.6% in 1982.
  • The lowest calendar year return for this portfolio was -5.5% in 1931.
  • From 1927 to 2007, the average annual return for a diversified 10% Stock portfolio was 5.8%.
  • During any consecutive 3 years from 1927 to 2007, this portfolio lost money 2 times out of a possible 79 periods. The two worst 3 year periods were 1929-1931 and 1930-1932 (Great Depression), when the portfolio lost about 2.7% and 0.3% of its original value, respectively.
  • This 10% Stock portfolio never lost money during any consecutive 5 year period from 1927 to 2007.

       I would never recommend that anyone with a long-term time horizon invest in a 10% Stock portfolio. You get a much better return for very little additional risk by using a 20% Stock portfolio instead. That extra 10% of stock really does help to increase your return and long-term results significantly.

       If you have a short-term (< 5 years away) goal that you'd like to save for, I recommend using a high-yield savings account or U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS). These will enable you to save for your goal while earning a reasonable interest rate with little to no risk.

December 17, 2008

A Closer Look at a Diversified 20% Stock Portfolio

Filed under: Diversified Portfolios,Investing,Retirement Planning — Paul Williams @ Crackerjack Greenback @ 3:30 am

       In my example of what a diversified portfolio looks like, I used a 70% Stock portfolio as an illustration. To save you the time and math, I’ve started a series of posts that look at a range of diversified portfolios from 100% Stock to 0% Stock. I’ll break these portfolios down in 10% increments. Today we’ll take a closer look at a 20% Stock portfolio.

       Here’s a pie chart depicting the asset allocation for a diversified 20% Stock portfolio:

Allocation for 20% Stock Portfolio - Small

       Click here to learn how to invest in a diversified 20% Stock portfolio. Keep in mind that you’ll need $188,000 to meet the fund minimums for this particular portfolio. If you invest at Vanguard, the total expense ratio for this portfolio would be 0.20%.

       Here’s a chart showing the historical returns for this portfolio from 1927-2007:

Historical Returns for 20% Stock Portfolio - Small

Now for some quick facts about this 20% Stock portfolio:

  • The highest calendar year return for this portfolio was 20.8% in 1933.
  • The lowest calendar year return for this portfolio was -10.5% in 1931.
  • From 1927 to 2007, the average annual return for a diversified 20% Stock portfolio was 6.7%.
  • During any consecutive 3 years from 1927 to 2007, this portfolio lost money 3 times out of a possible 79 periods. In 1 of those 3 times, it lost less than 0.6% of its original value.
  • The two worst 3 year periods were 1929-1931 and 1930-1932 (Great Depression), when the portfolio lost about 12% of its original value.
  • During any consecutive 5 years from 1927 to 2007, this portfolio lost money only once out of a possible 77 periods. Even then, it lost less than 1.8% of its original value.
  • This 20% Stock portfolio never lost money during any consecutive 7 year period from 1927 to 2007.
  • This portfolio never averaged less than a 4.2% annual return during any consecutive 30 year period from 1927 to 2007.

       My hope is that this information will prepare you for the possible risk of investing in a 20% Stock portfolio while giving you some perspective during tough times. I think it’s really important to emphasize that last quick fact. If you have a time horizon of 30+ years, there is no historical period where you would have averaged less than a 4.2% annual return. (Even if you started just before the Great Depression!!!) Take comfort in that fact when the media barrages you with doom and gloom news every day.

December 16, 2008

A Closer Look at a Diversified 30% Stock Portfolio

Filed under: Diversified Portfolios,Investing,Retirement Planning — Paul Williams @ Crackerjack Greenback @ 3:30 am

       In my example of what a diversified portfolio looks like, I used a 70% Stock portfolio as an illustration. To save you the time and math, I’ve started a series of posts that look at a range of diversified portfolios from 100% Stock to 0% Stock. I’ll break these portfolios down in 10% increments. Today we’ll take a closer look at a 30% Stock portfolio.

       Here’s a pie chart depicting the asset allocation for a diversified 30% Stock portfolio:

Allocation for 30% Stock Portfolio - Small

       Click here to learn how to invest in a diversified 30% Stock portfolio. Keep in mind that you’ll need $125,000 to meet the fund minimums for this particular portfolio. If you invest at Vanguard, the total expense ratio for this portfolio would be 0.21%.

       Here’s a chart showing the historical returns for this portfolio from 1927-2007:

Historical Returns for 30% Stock Portfolio - Small

Now for some quick facts about this 30% Stock portfolio:

  • The highest calendar year return for this portfolio was 28.6% in 1933.
  • The lowest calendar year return for this portfolio was -15.5% in 1931.
  • From 1927 to 2007, the average annual return for a diversified 30% Stock portfolio was 7.4%.
  • During any consecutive 3 years from 1927 to 2007, this portfolio lost money 4 times out of a possible 79 periods. In 2 of those 4 times, it lost less than 3.3% of its original value.
  • The two worst 3 year periods were 1929-1931 and 1930-1932 (Great Depression), when the portfolio lost about 21% of its original value.
  • During any consecutive 5 years from 1927 to 2007, this portfolio lost money 3 times out of a possible 77 periods.
  • This 30% Stock portfolio never lost money during any consecutive 7 year period from 1927 to 2007.
  • This portfolio never averaged less than a 5.1% annual return during any consecutive 30 year period from 1927 to 2007.
  • In 27 of the 52 possible consecutive 30 year periods from 1927 to 2007, this portfolio had a return higher than its historical average of 7.4%. Nearly 52% of the time, you would have had a higher than average return for a 30 year time period.

       My hope is that this information will prepare you for the possible risk of investing in a 30% Stock portfolio while giving you some perspective during tough times. I think it’s really important to emphasize those last two quick facts. If you have a time horizon of 30+ years, there is no historical period where you would have averaged less than a 5.1% annual return. (Even if you started just before the Great Depression!!!) And 52% of the time, you would have had a higher than average return over a 30 year time period. Take comfort in those facts when the media barrages you with doom and gloom news every day.

December 15, 2008

A Closer Look at a Diversified 40% Stock Portfolio

Filed under: Diversified Portfolios,Investing,Retirement Planning — Paul Williams @ Crackerjack Greenback @ 3:30 am

       In my example of what a diversified portfolio looks like, I used a 70% Stock portfolio as an illustration. To save you the time and math, I’ve started a series of posts that look at a range of diversified portfolios from 100% Stock to 0% Stock. I’ll break these portfolios down in 10% increments. Today we’ll take a closer look at a 40% Stock portfolio.

       Here’s a pie chart depicting the asset allocation for a diversified 40% Stock portfolio:

Allocation for 40% Stock Portfolio - Small

       Click here to learn how to invest in a diversified 40% Stock portfolio. Keep in mind that you’ll need $94,000 to meet the fund minimums for this particular portfolio. If you invest at Vanguard, the total expense ratio for this portfolio would be 0.22%.

       Here’s a chart showing the historical returns for this portfolio from 1927-2007:

Historical Returns for 40% Stock Portfolio - Small

Now for some quick facts about this 40% Stock portfolio:

  • The highest calendar year return for this portfolio was 36.4% in 1933.
  • The lowest calendar year return for this portfolio was -20.5% in 1931.
  • From 1927 to 2007, the average annual return for a diversified 40% Stock portfolio was 8.2%.
  • During any consecutive 3 years from 1927 to 2007, this portfolio lost money 5 times out of a possible 79 periods. In 2 of those 5 times, it lost less than 4.2% of its original value.
  • The two worst 3 year periods were 1929-1931 and 1930-1932 (Great Depression), when the portfolio lost about 30% of its original value.
  • During any consecutive 5 years from 1927 to 2007, this portfolio lost money 4 times out of a possible 77 periods.
  • This 40% Stock portfolio never lost money during any consecutive 7 year period from 1927 to 2007.
  • This portfolio never averaged less than a 5.9% annual return during any consecutive 30 year period from 1927 to 2007.
  • In 29 of the 52 possible consecutive 30 year periods from 1927 to 2007, this portfolio had a return higher than its historical average of 8.2%. Over 55% of the time, you would have had a higher than average return for a 30 year time period.

       My hope is that this information will prepare you for the possible risk of investing in a 40% Stock portfolio while giving you some perspective during tough times. I think it’s really important to emphasize those last two quick facts. If you have a time horizon of 30+ years, there is no historical period where you would have averaged less than a 5.9% annual return. (Even if you started just before the Great Depression!!!) And 55% of the time, you would have had a higher than average return over a 30 year time period. Take comfort in those facts when the media barrages you with doom and gloom news every day.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress

css.php