A Crazy-Simple Dividend Strategy You Should Seriously Consider

Below, I'm going to share a very, very simple-to-use formula that can help you create a discerning portfolio of dividend stocks. Not just any dividend stocks, but dividend growth stocks (more on why that's important later). But first, I want to share one of my favorite quotes about dividends.

In a lecture to students (available thanks to YouTube), NYU Stern School's Aswath Damodaran compares dividends, an old-school practice of rewarding shareholders, with stock buybacks, a relatively recent phenomenon of corporate boardrooms:

"Dividends are like getting married; stock buybacks are like hooking up."

Brilliant!
Dividend payments are a long-term commitment, requiring consistency and discipline from management.

And that's exactly how they're treated. According to Fidelity Viewpoints, "Companies are loath to cut dividends, even during hard times, out of fear that reducing or eliminating the payment will cause investors to flee their stock." Neither party, it seems, wants the marriage to end.

But end it does, which is why prospective suitors need to be diligent in their research. In 2010, 145 companies reduced or eliminated their dividend payments. That's actually great news, suggesting a recovering economy; in percentage terms, it's 82% lower than the 804 cuts in 2009. It's also well below the 606 dividend reductions in 2008.

But back to that formula. I said it would be crazy-simple, and I hope you'll agree.

The 10-10 Formula
The 10-10 Formula goes as follows: Seek out stocks that have …

  • Raised dividends for a minimum of 10 consecutive years, and
  • Increased those dividends by an average of 10% or more per year for a decade

This 10-10 test was developed by Tom Cameron, the chairman of Dividend Growth Advisors, who currently uses it to run a mutual fund called Rising Dividend Growth Fund (ICRDX) to great effect. Over the past five years, the fund has returned more than 4 percentage points per year beyond the returns of the S&P 500, putting it in the top two percent overall in its category.

Why are growing dividends important? In November, I wrote about a Ned Davis Research study showing the impressive outperformance of S&P 500 "dividend growers and initiators." If invested in this segment, $100 grew to $3,214 from January 1972 through the end of September 2010. By comparison, dividend stocks with no change in their dividend policy turned $100 into $1,422.

Also, "growth in dividend payments often tends to be more reliable than earnings growth," says Fidelity Viewpoints. "Since 1946, dividend growth rates have had a standard deviation of just 6%, compared with 16% for earnings growth rates."

What this means for you
Exposure to fast-growing dividend payers should excite even the most conservative investors. After all, one side benefit of 10-10 is that if a company chooses to maintain its dividend payout, rather than increase it, the strategy kicks it aside. Status quo even for one year removes a stock from consideration for the next decade. (One caveat to this crazy-simple strategy: I find it compelling as a starting point for screening and researching, but not as a binding mechanical strategy.)

By focusing only on the consistent growers, you score bigger checks every year (or more shares bought when reinvesting). More importantly, steady dividend increases bode well for a stock's future. My colleague Todd Wenning wrote about a 2003 study showing a link between higher payouts and higher earnings growth, for the simple fact that managers had to carefully allocate capital to value-creating projects.

Putting it into practice
I'd like to share a few specific dividend stocks with you -- and provide a link where you can get one Fool dividend favorite in particular. But let me first make clear that I'm not here to proselytize on behalf of Rising Dividend Growth.

Although a spokesman for the fund told me that fees would drop as economies of scale are realized with things like back-office costs, the fund's fees are higher than the Morningstar category average, and A shares have a front-end load. (Read up on why I hate load funds.)

Nonetheless, I'm impressed by the fund's performance figures, and I love its 10-10 Formula. Its strategy deserves serious consideration among dividend investors.

So let's get a sense for the companies that pass the 10-10 test. Below are five stocks that have been paying dividends every year for 10 consecutive years, and which have raised those dividends by a minimum of 10% per year over that time frame. They are also favored by the management team of the Rising Dividend Growth fund, ranking among the fund's top 10 holdings.

Company

10-Year Dividend CAGR

Consecutive Years of Dividend Increases

Novo Nordisk (NYSE: NVO  ) 23.5% 14
IBM (NYSE: IBM  ) 17.8% 15
Walgreen (NYSE: WAG  ) 16.1% 35
Teva Pharmaceutical (Nasdaq: TEVA  ) 29.7% 10
Archer-Daniels-Midland (NYSE: ADM  ) 12.6% 36

Source: Dividend Growth Advisors. Top holdings as of Dec. 31, 2010.

I'm no expert on all these stocks, and thus I'm not making a buy or sell call right now. But those dividend track records are things of beauty.

There's another top-10 fund holding that Fool retail editor Jim Royal called his dividend stock "for a lifetime." If you're looking for a thoroughly vetted stock idea, click here, enter your email address, and we'll send you the full write-up free of charge.

Stocks that pass the 10-10 test show a marriage-like commitment and consistency to raising their dividends, making this a simple yet powerful strategy to consider.

Fool.com managing editor Brian Richards does not own shares of any companies mentioned in this article. The Fool owns shares of IBM and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (33) | Recommend This Article (140)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2011, at 5:02 PM, neamakri wrote:

    Your article is stimulating but I disagree. For example (WAG) pays 1.65% dividend. Let's compare this to (T) paying 6.15%. Using a spreadsheet and giving (WAG) a 10% nudge every year, we discover that after 24 years you have STILL collected more from (T)! The reason is because it had a big head start at 6.15%. Furthermore, if you subtract 2.5% inflation every year, (WAG) actually nets a negative total return for the first nine years.

    HERE are my rules for purchasing dividend stock.

    (1) dividend is over 6%.

    (2) dividend has paid the same or increased for 16 quarters or more.

    (3) dividends are covered by earnings (payout < 100%)

    (4) analysts predict future earnings will increase 5% or more.

    (5) you are comfortable with the business model.

    (6) buying this stock will keep you diversified.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Mstinterestinman wrote:

    I personally prefer smaller fast growing companies that arent mature enough for a dividend I guess I like the Peter Lynch Method or Garp..lol I do Own Nucor and Coke. Those two anyone could hold pretty much for life.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2011, at 6:24 PM, personalwm wrote:

    Interesting strategy.

    You state "... the fund has returned more than 4 percentage points per year beyond the returns of the S&P 500, putting it in the top two percent overall in its category."

    But that is a top returner in its category which I assume is dividend funds. How did it compare to other funds?

    Additionally, the last 5 years have been volatile. How has this strategy compared over 10, 15, or 20 years? The longer that a strategy backtests, the better.

    Finally, cash dividends are paid out of a company's reserves. That means the cash cannot be reinvested in operations, acquisitions, R&D, etc. Areas that build businesses.Usually this means less growth in the company and its share price. While dividends may mean steady or increasing income, it can also indicate stocks that are mature or stagnating and have little capital growth potential.

    If you want income, fine. But if you want capital gains, this may not be the optimal strategy.

    For more information on personal wealth management and investing, please check out www.personalwm.com

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Appatdugain wrote:

    This is all fine and good but the named companies give you a yield of around 1.5% each.As per a previous post do the math to see how many years you will need with their dividend growth rate to catch up solid payers like KMP or AZN which pay 6.3%,growing at 7% for KMP and 5.2% growing at 11% for AZN.

    The ICDRX has a huge load ,over 5%,which means you give up 1 year of returns to buy into the fund!

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2011, at 7:43 PM, Citzenkane wrote:

    Can use some advice. I have $10k that I want

    To use to begin my dividend portfolio. How

    Should I divide that amount to begin? Or do I

    Not divide it and put it into one strong dividend

    Stock?

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2011, at 8:55 PM, busterbuddy wrote:

    So I've been giving some thought to articles like these that talk about simple dividend strategies. And those who run spreadsheets of dividend paying stocks that have increases etc. And this is my conclusion.

    They're bull and a waste of time. Here is why. Most of them focus on the same problem as stock pickers. Hey which one is going to give me the best gain. But it is like betting on the tortoise or the Hare to win or place.

    This is the simple strategy. Don't look necessarily at all this BS accounting like you will find the key secret inside the data if you look hard enought. Pick five to ten stocks and make a decision about them. You want those that pay good dividends. Well good is more that the 10 year treasury rate. My view is 1.5 to 2 times the rate.

    Don't go off and purchase the highest yielding but at the same time don't go purchase, this stock has increased its dividend for the last 100 years" stock either. Because A penny increase is nothing if the yield is 1.25 times the treasury rate.

    Pick industries. Utilities, Gas and OIl, Telephone, etc. those that generate the heck out of cash and are key to commercial and individuals.

    And dividend investing is boring.

    So here is a simple list of ten pick one and then go start it. First the industries.

    Telephone/communication, Utilities, Oil and Gas pipeline, Oil Gas MLP, DRugs, consumer goods, Technology, Banks, Insurance, transportation, industrial, defense, one speculative meaning it has a high yield.

    Symbols

    T or VZ, SO, ETP, MO, MRK (but I'd think about it and don't make it your first three ownerships.), mmm, PGF (for banks or NLY), LMT, CAT, OLIN?, O, SBR

    You can go to Yahoo finance/investment/stocks/anal sector/industrial analysis/ click and sort on dividend yield to start. Reading and doing all this financial analysis is bull if you understand the ratios you have the data.

    Key is to reinvest your dividends and have many shares. MF got similiar capability.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2011, at 11:30 PM, TMFBrich wrote:

    @BigPlayers,

    Thanks for reading. You're right to focus on the payout ratio -- I didn't mention it here, but the payout ratio should be a key part of dividend investing research.

    Best regards,

    Brian Richards

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2011, at 11:35 PM, TMFBrich wrote:

    @Mstinterestinman:

    You wrote, "I personally prefer smaller fast growing companies that arent mature enough for a dividend I guess I like the Peter Lynch Method or Garp." Fair enough. Although, these aren't mutually exclusive. Wal-Mart, for instance, went public in 1970 but started paying a dividend as a young, fast-growing company in 1974.

    Best regards,

    Brian Richards

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2011, at 11:51 PM, TMFBrich wrote:

    @personalwm:

    You wrote, "But that is a top returner in its category which I assume is dividend funds. How did it compare to other funds?"

    The category is "large blend," which is broad. http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?Country=USA&ss=...

    "Additionally, the last 5 years have been volatile. How has this strategy compared over 10, 15, or 20 years? The longer that a strategy backtests, the better."

    Agreed. The longer the track record, the better. This fund is only six years old.

    "Finally, cash dividends are paid out of a company's reserves. That means the cash cannot be reinvested in operations, acquisitions, R&D, etc. Areas that build businesses.Usually this means less growth in the company and its share price. While dividends may mean steady or increasing income, it can also indicate stocks that are mature or stagnating and have little capital growth potential."

    I refer you to the following study: "Surprise! Higher Dividends = Higher Earnings Growth," by Rob Arnott and Clifford Asness. Their conclusion refutes that: "The historical evidence strongly suggests that expected future earnings growth is fastest when current payout ratios are high and slowest when payout ratios are low. ... Our evidence thus contradicts the views of many who believe that substantial reinvestment of

    retained earnings will fuel faster future earnings growth. Rather, it is consistent with anecdotal tales about managers signaling their earnings

    expectations through dividends or engaging, at times, in inefficient empire building. Our findings offer a challenge to market observers who see the

    low dividend payouts of recent times as a sign of strong future earnings to come."

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=390143

    Best regards,

    Brian Richards

  • Report this Comment On February 04, 2011, at 12:07 AM, TMFBrich wrote:

    @Appatdugain:

    You wrote: "This is all fine and good but the named companies give you a yield of around 1.5% each.As per a previous post do the math to see how many years you will need with their dividend growth rate to catch up solid payers like KMP or AZN which pay 6.3%,growing at 7% for KMP and 5.2% growing at 11% for AZN."

    I don't mean to suggest that disciplined dividend growers are the /only/ dividend stocks you should be researching. However, I think too many investors fixate only on the yield, and not enough on the consistency and growth rates of the payout. If you're a long-term-oriented investor, those are absolutely key.

    "The ICDRX has a huge load ,over 5%,which means you give up 1 year of returns to buy into the fund!"

    Correct -- the fund's load is unacceptable. Note: I'm not suggesting people buy the fund (there's a link w/in the article above to an older piece I wrote on why I hate load funds) ... I'm a fan of their strategy, is all.

    Best regards,

    Brian Richards

  • Report this Comment On February 04, 2011, at 6:22 AM, peterharding1948 wrote:

    Nice and interesting article, but if I understand correctly, I can just pick any of the Dividend Aristocrats: http://goo.gl/xjc8h ?

  • Report this Comment On February 04, 2011, at 7:43 AM, TMFBrich wrote:

    @peterharding1948:

    Thanks for reading. You wrote: "Nice and interesting article, but if I understand correctly, I can just pick any of the Dividend Aristocrats?"

    While they are similar, there are key differences: The 10-10 strategy requires only 10 years of consecutive dividend increases; the Aristocrats requires 25 years of it.

    The Aristocrats requires any size dividend increase; 10-10 requires a minimum 10% hike in payout per year over a 10-year period.

    Finally, the Aristocrats are S&P-focused, so they will only focus on U.S. stocks. The 10-10 strategy includes foreign stocks -- e.g., the Swiss giant Nestle is the fund-in-question's third-largest position.

    Best regards,

    Brian Richards

  • Report this Comment On February 04, 2011, at 10:36 AM, idanp wrote:

    @neamakri

    Your strategy is almost the same strategy I own.

    I don't have the 5% increase in earnings predictions, and it does sound interesting.

    I do however have another condition:

    If the stock price now is lower than it used to be last year, than I reduce this number from the dividend (so if you have a company that yield 8%, but its stock price is 5% lower than last year, than I rule this stock out).

  • Report this Comment On February 04, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bernbern0 wrote:

    truthisntstupid: Somehow, I missed your article of Feb 2010 that you have the link for in one of your comments. I just checked it out, and I agree with so many people who said it was one of the best posts on Motley Fool. As the proud long-time owner of some of the stocks mentioned in your article, I congratulate you for sharing those numbers with others. I hope more people will read it. I'll show the link again, if they missed it.

    http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/dividend-growth-time-and/346141

  • Report this Comment On February 04, 2011, at 4:04 PM, mikecart1 wrote:

    The best dividends out right now are in the commodities. However, sometimes a dividend is great in communications. Over in retail you don't see dividends much. McDonald's is a profitable company but I would like to see more dividends. Places like Wal-Mart also should give more since their growth has halted. Seriously, MSFT needs to raise theirs. Or, even a monster company like IBM. New companies would get more institutional trading. 97' was the last great bull market.

  • Report this Comment On February 04, 2011, at 9:46 PM, Latinus wrote:

    Hi, busterbuddy

    What's so great about SBR?

    Have you ever sold SBR and tried to determine the long-term gain?

  • Report this Comment On February 05, 2011, at 8:40 PM, kalho13 wrote:

    While there are some interesting dividend stocks discussed here and held by the mutual fund I would NEVER buy the fund at a 5.75% initial load and annual expenses of 1.65%.

    Kal

  • Report this Comment On February 08, 2011, at 5:45 PM, TMFBrich wrote:

    @Kal,

    I too disdain load funds, and have written as much in the past: "So load mutual funds not only cost you more in fees, they cost you more in lost returns! There's only one conclusion: Don't touch them with a 10-foot pole."

    http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2011/02/03/a-...

    Nonetheless, I like the fund's 10-10 approach.

    Best regards,

    Brian Richards

  • Report this Comment On February 11, 2011, at 3:02 PM, 4agoodtime wrote:

    Overall fund performance indicates an approximate 40% return over 6 years. Currently, 9.5% of the fund consists of Fidelity Instl MM Fds Money Market Instl. nearing a historical high above it's 200 ma.

    10-10 Dividend Investment sounds note worthy, but I agree with Brian, wouldn't touch it!

  • Report this Comment On February 11, 2011, at 3:43 PM, turnipseedtales wrote:

    An alternative fund might be VDIGX - Vanguard Dividend Growth. No load, low expenses (.38%), and a focus on sustainable dividend growth. 5 star Morningstar rating, same as ICRDX.

  • Report this Comment On February 11, 2011, at 9:15 PM, TMFBrich wrote:

    @jempsall,

    Vanguard is a great shop -- low expenses, never any loads. VDIGX looks like a good fund. However, at a quick glance of the fund's holdings I see Pfizer (PFE) is a top 25 holding; when it bought Wyeth in '09 Pfizer cut its dividend in half, disappointing income seekers. I like (and personally own) Vanguard Dividend Appreciation (VIG) exchange-traded fund:

    <<Dividend Appreciation Index Fund will track the performance of the Dividend Achievers Select Index, an index created exclusively for Vanguard by Mergent. A unique dividend-growth investment tool, the index is a subset of Mergent’s Broad Dividend Achievers Index which follows U.S.-listed companies that have increased their annual regular dividends for at least the past 10 consecutive years and have met specific liquidity screening criteria. The Dividend Achievers Select Index uses additional proprietary methodology to focus on approximately 200 stocks, and offers investors access to companies with consistent earnings growth and bolstered diversification across securities, sectors and investment styles.>>

    It's similar to 10-10 in one respect, although the 10% dividend-per-share CAGR isn't a requirement. For what it's worth.

    Thanks for reading,

    Brian Richards (as mentioned, I own shares of VIG)

  • Report this Comment On February 11, 2011, at 10:30 PM, ozzfan1317 wrote:

    @Mstinterestinman:

    You wrote, "I personally prefer smaller fast growing companies that arent mature enough for a dividend I guess I like the Peter Lynch Method or Garp." Fair enough. Although, these aren't mutually exclusive. Wal-Mart, for instance, went public in 1970 but started paying a dividend as a young, fast-growing company in 1974.

    Best regards,

    Brian Richards

    I agree I do own one small company that pays a dividend. Rock Mountain Choclate Factory. RMCF When you combine solid or above average growth with a nice yield even I won't argue..lol Although I broke one of my ground rules and bought Netflix much higher valuation than I will usually even hold onto but the brand is undeniable.

  • Report this Comment On February 11, 2011, at 10:44 PM, ozzfan1317 wrote:

    Btw the other profile is my real life portfolio sorry for any confusion..lol

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 12:09 AM, shbeavers wrote:

    I like the 10-10 strategy as a quick screen idea to identify good candidate investment prospects. Copying years of dividend payouts from Yahoo, adjusting for splits and the like in order to calculate dividend compound average growth rates (CAGRs) is painstaking.

    Where is there a stock screener that has the 10-10 criteria available as screening factors?

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 1:47 AM, gibor365 wrote:

    Interesting and pretty valid approach....but agree with comment that 1.5% initial yield is not enough... Strategy should be 10-10-5 (5 stands for minimum yield).

    Instead of investing into companies with 1.5% yield, I prefer to invest into CEL (solid relecom with 12% yield). Cheers!

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Pickinandgrinnin wrote:

    Speaking of crazy simple strategies, I've noticed that many high yielding foreign companies like Deutsche Telecom and Advanced Info Public Service Co. (Thai mobile phone provider) pay dividends only once or twice a year and don't list ex-dividend dates. Couldn't you buy and sell a half dozen of these stable telecoms and utilites five or six times a year based on laddering their dividend dates, averaging 8% a pop? What am I missing?

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 11:43 AM, giveaholic wrote:

    @pickinandgrinnin

    All companies have to list ex-dividend dates. The market adjusts stock prices when they go ex-dividend. You can try some trading around these dates but trading costs and a savvy market are unlikely to allow you any large profits or losses.

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Pickinandgrinnin wrote:

    Do you know a good site to find the ex-div dates for foreign stocks? I use this one, Yahoo finance, CNBC.com, and realclearmarkets for research. All say na. Thanks for your help.

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 5:02 PM, compufixer wrote:

    CitizenKane

    Since you have money to invest, you should seriously consider putting it into a "Roth IRA". The big advantage: you will never have to pay a penny in income tax on the money again. You can probably put in up to $5000/yr, unless yr an old geezer like me, u can put in $6K/yr.

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 5:15 PM, TMFBrich wrote:

    @shbeavers,

    <<Where is there a stock screener that has the 10-10 criteria available as screening factors?>>

    Great question. The screening tool I use (Capital IQ) is subscription-based. Here are a few ideas:

    1. Dividend.com has a free screener where you can screen for "10-year payer" or "25-year payer." http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stock-screener.php

    2. Microsoft's free screener is decent: http://www.bing.com/finance/stockscreener

    3. You can narrow your search by looking at other folks' research. E.g., the holdings in the fund mentioned in the above story: http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=ICRDX&.... Or, though it's not the same as the 10-10, another div-growth index you could use is the Dividend Aristocrats (increased divs for 25 straight years): http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-500-dividend-aris....

    Best regards,

    Brian Richards

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 5:19 PM, TMFBrich wrote:

    @gibor365:

    <<Interesting and pretty valid approach....but agree with comment that 1.5% initial yield is not enough... Strategy should be 10-10-5 (5 stands for minimum yield).>>

    Fair point. I wrote a follow-up article using the 10-10 strategy, with third component being a yield above 3%. (S&P 500 avg is 1.7%, so 3% seems like a fair requirement to be considered high-yield.)

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/09/3-sneaky-go...

    Best regards,

    Brian Richards

  • Report this Comment On February 13, 2011, at 9:33 AM, FoolSolo wrote:

    Thanks for the article. Those are interesting stats, and I tend to agree with others that yield should be included in the analysis. However, there are so many different ways to slice the market up, that no single formula will satisfy everyone. For example, my preference is to add a growth filter, and I don't like seeing payout ratios over 50% because companies with high payout ratios have little or nothing left to grow the business.

    In a screen I ran after reading this article, I used the following:

    Market Cap > $2B

    EPS growth last 5 years > 0

    Sales growth last 5 years > 0

    Net Profit Margine > 0

    Current Ratio > 1.5

    ROE > 15%

    Debt/Equity < .5

    P/FCF < 50

    Yield > 3%

    Payout Ratio < 50%

    This gave me just 2 companies this time around; MAT and GRM.

    Mattel has a yield of 3.6%, with a payout of 43.75%, but a debt ratio of 0.46. But with a big stable of franchise toys, like Barbie and G.I. Joe, they have a solid base to go digital and make movies, which seems like the next frontier for Mattel.

    Garmin has a yield of 4.53%, and payout of 40.91%. Financially GRM is solid, lots of cash and no debt. But the GPS market is being commoditized by the phone industry, so their growth picture is a bit gray. Still, their yield and financial position is pretty enticing.

    More food for thought.

  • Report this Comment On May 13, 2011, at 7:43 PM, mikecoursey wrote:

    @idanp

    You wrote:

    _____

    @neamakri

    Your strategy is almost the same strategy I own.

    I don't have the 5% increase in earnings predictions, and it does sound interesting.

    I do however have another condition:

    If the stock price now is lower than it used to be last year, than I reduce this number from the dividend (so if you have a company that yield 8%, but its stock price is 5% lower than last year, than I rule this stock out).

    ______

    So let me get this straight. Assuming the the company is doing as well last year financially (and by that I mean it's overall financial health and earnings) you would screen a stock off because it's price is lower and return on investment is more attractive?

    Sorry to tell you this, but you need a new hobby.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1435216, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/18/2014 4:05:06 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement