Norwich Union Portfolio Step-down: any good for income for a 63-yr-old?

whoosh · 27 June 2007 at 8:47PM

I'd be interested to hear MSEs' thoughts on a proposal from an IFA, and I'd be especially glad to hear from this board's resident IFAs.

I'll explain the context briefly. My mother and I have seen several IFAs and not had a great deal of confidence in any of them (I've previously posted about this and received useful advice).

In summary, she has circa £100k to invest (after MVA she will suffer when she surrenders Scottish Mutual with-profits bond) and she needs a living income of at least £400/month, ideally without having to spend her capital. The purpose of the investment is to invest for this income and hopefully preserve the capital for family inheritance. She has no other meaningful income (except a small amount from a hobby). She has smaller savings elsewhere in an ISA for emergency use or her ailing car.

I'd like to test the thoughts of one IFA with MSEs. He has recommended a Norwich Union Portfolio Bond (Step-down Option).

His proposal is to leave about £20k for cash spending and invest c£80k for growth. He said that if the bond is set up correctly, investing across the four asset classes, then there would be no need to review any more frequently than annually.

I don't know in detail how he proposes to split the investments but he seemed keen on the NU Property Series 4 (Life Fund) as one option. He said that he would look to split the rest between external funds within the NU wrapper.

Although we have previously rejected IFAs who have recommended single-vehicle solutions (given that the SC Mutual Bond put all her eggs in one basket), this nevertheless seems more interesting, because the annual charges are fairly low (about 1%) and the allocation rate is high - about £108k based on investment of £100k based on extra allocation and some foregoing of IFA's commission.

Previously, providers recommended to us by IFAs offering high allocation rates such as Skandia Canada Life, have also come with high charges - is this NU product really better or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

As I said in an earlier post, we're getting wildly different answers from different IFAs. It's hard to arbitrate between them. I've had annuities plugged, one IFA focused on distribution bonds, some have vaguely recommended a single Bond which (as a previous response to my posts noted) seems to be a repeat of what my mother was originally missold. Others have suggested offshore investments. We can't see the wood for the trees!

This bond, however, seems to have low charges and to have a good allocation rate. Could it be a better option?

She isn't too worried by early exit penalties since like I say, the money is primarily for income and she has a few thou for emergency use.

As ever, thoughts are welcome and appreciated from anybody, particularly those in the trade.

Finding an IFA we have confidence in is proving very difficult and we really need to get the money working.

jem16 · 27 June 2007 at 9:12PM

I have £100k invested in this investment bond split over 11 funds. I am very happy with it but it does suit my circumstances as a higher rate taxpayer also looking to minimise IHT. Also the allocation rate was better as it was £100k - it wasn't as good for less than £100k.

However if, as seems likely, your mother is not a higher rate taxpayer then this may not be the best option. From what I remember of your last posts Dunstonh suggested that the most likely route was ISA first followed by unit trusts.

You may need to give more specific information on your mum's circumstances as there are times when a bond can be useful to people who are not higher rate taxpayers.

dunstonh · 27 June 2007 at 10:12PM

He has recommended a Norwich Union Portfolio Bond (Step-down Option).

Its a good start as far as bonds go. It is one of the lowest charged there is and has a good internal and external fund range. No charges on switches and no limit on how many you can do. It is very easy with the NU bond to have a 10 fund spread with a reduction in yield of around 1% p.a.

I have done more NU portfolio step down bonds than any other provider's offering. So, I have confidence in it.

I don't know in detail how he proposes to split the investments but he seemed keen on the NU Property Series 4 (Life Fund) as one option. He said that he would look to split the rest between external funds within the NU wrapper.

Good property fund (they have two UK varients, a euro and global property option as well). Obviously property has gone on the downturn recently but that has been expected for a while with most property fund managers saying they felt a bad year would come followed by a period of 7-8% a year returns instead of the old 10-20% returns of nearly a decade. Still worth a resonable segment along with the other sectors.

Although we have previously rejected IFAs who have recommended single-vehicle solutions (given that the SC Mutual Bond put all her eggs in one basket), this nevertheless seems more interesting, because the annual charges are fairly low (about 1%) and the allocation rate is high - about £108k based on investment of £100k based on extra allocation and some foregoing of IFA's commission.

NUs offering is different to scot mut. Scot Mut WP bond was a single fund option. NU have over 100 funds so its more of a flexible wrapper.

The charges appear to match mine on 1% plus 0.5%p.a. with that allocation. That is NMA ideal terms so charges are good and well below average.

Previously, providers recommended to us by IFAs offering high allocation rates such as Skandia Canada Life, have also come with high charges - is this NU product really better or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Canada Life is popular with some but NU beats it. Skandia is nowhere close. Skandia's option used to be one of the best about 10 years ago. It was the only way at that time to get access to a wide range of funds from the different fund houses. However, whilst everyone else caught up. Skandia stood still and you tend to find they have some of the highest charges by todays standards.

one IFA focused on distribution bonds

Nothing technically wrong with that but its a single fund option. I would call it a lazy option but it could easily do the job.

As I said in an earlier post, we're getting wildly different answers from different IFAs. It's hard to arbitrate between them.

Investing is often about opinion. There are different strategies. You also have to remember that the term IFA covers a wide range of skills. A bit like a doctor, you have the GP, consultants and specialists. The same applies to IFAs. Some are general practitioners, others specialise.

Also, different IFAs can get products on different terms. I can get access to the NU investment bond at top commission rate which is 3.5% higher than the default. So, when commission is rebated on NMA basis, that improves the terms for the client if I do it but another IFA may be able to get better terms on another provider than I can. A bit like a tin of beans will have a different price at different supermarkets. It sounds like this particular IFA gets same terms as me given the allocation rate offered.

Others have suggested offshore investments.

Possible but more expensive and I dont think 100k is worth it. The charges on offshore bonds suit higher investment values as they are often fixed charges rather than percentage based.

However if, as seems likely, your mother is not a higher rate taxpayer then this may not be the best option. From what I remember of your last posts Dunstonh suggested that the most likely route was ISA first followed by unit trusts.

It doesnt matter if its bond or unit trust or anything else, ISA first. That 7k allowance will beat 7k in a bond. You may not get the allocation rate and it may take a few years to get beat the bond but ISAs are top of the pile.

Unit trusts are usually next but there are some exceptions. Higher rate taxpayers being one of them. Age allowance reduction, concerns over local authority care means tests, not wanting to bother with tax returns with CGT calculations and having to buy and sell units every year can make a bond better from a convenience point of view but UTs will be more tax efficient than a bond if you dont mind that extra bit of work. However, we are not talking by much and if you cost in the buying and selling of units in unit trusts each year and the time involved (which you may pay for if you use an accountant or IFA) then it may be worth sticking with the bond.

So, this IFA of yours seems to be charging on NMA IFA basis at the ideal cost. Has recommended probably the best bond on the market as far as costs and as long as the fund spread is good, then you are on to a winner. Although you may just want to pose the question over why the ISA allowance isnt being used and why unit trusts were discounted.

EdInvestor · 27 June 2007 at 11:34PM

The IFA is suggesting that your mother invests in a number of life funds (property etc) inside an investment bond wrapper.This wrapper is not tax efficient for a basic rate taxpayer.

Oldie BRTs do not pay tax on dividend income (if total income is below 21k) and the capital gains tax allowance is 9.2k a year on cashed in gains, so CGT is very avoidable. But inside the bond gains are taxable at 20% and this is not reclaimable.

Note also with the investment bond that the so called "income" is actually being paid out of your mother's capital. This may be Ok when the market is booming, but because the charges on these bonds are quite high, there is a danger of rapid capital depletion if the market is flat or falling. You could find that your aim of capital preservation is impacted here without you realising.These bonds blur the distinction between your capital and your income in a risky way.

Your mother would be better served by investing directly in a portfolio of diversified unit trusts, with the first 7k in the ISA.The bond wrapper is an unnecessary and expensive addition, serving mainly to increase the commission earned by the advisor, just as it did the first time

.

dunstonh · 28 June 2007 at 12:37AM

Oldie BRTs do not pay tax on dividend income (if total income is below 21k) and the capital gains tax allowance is 9.2k a year on cashed in gains, so CGT is very avoidable. But inside the bond gains are taxable at 20% and this is not reclaimable.

If you go down the unit trust route, then selling and buying annually would be required. That involves time and money. Some may be willing time spend the time and money. Others may not. Its a decision that an individual can make for themselves. The convenience may be worth the cost. In reality, the difference in returns is likely to be around 0.3%. p.a. in this case. Possibly lower if a high proportion of income funds have been used. The highest the difference could be is 1.2% a year. Take off 0.5% for lower charges and you are at 0.7%. There is a high liklihood that an older investor will have lower risk funds which have a higher income content so capital gains will either not apply or only apply to the capital element. So, that 0.7% will be lower. 0.3% is probably a decent average for a low risk portfolio.

0.3% is £300 a year. Selling say £10,000 of unit trusts and buying them back with an average 1.5% bid offer spread/initial charge is £150. So, the difference will be around £150 a year. Plus fund switching within the bond (for rebalancing) would not generate any CGT liability which could occur on fund switches on a unit trust (as well as switching charges on unit trusts which would not be the case on the bond).

Also, your description on tax is inaccurate. You suggest UTs are tax free and bonds are not but of course that is not correct. Both are taxed.

Investment bonds benefit from the tax credit in the same way unit trusts do. However, with investment bonds,

Corporation Tax is paid on the capital gains of the funds at a rate of 20%. Indexation relief may reduce the fund’s corporation tax liability on disposal of an asset. With unit trusts, you are personally liable for capital gains tax and can use your CGT allowance to reduce that liability, possibly to zero. In which case, it can be avoided with unit trusts. If you are happy to do that.

Note also with the investment bond that the so called "income" is actually being paid out of your mother's capital. This may be Ok when the market is booming, but because the charges on these bonds are quite high, there is a danger of rapid capital depletion if the market is flat or falling.

Eds errors are that she says charges are high but we have already said that the bond has a reduction in yield of around 1% which is about 0.5% lower than unit trusts. So that is inaccurate. She also says that there is more chance of capital depletion but this is also inaccurate. Like any investment whether it is cash, ISAs, unit trusts or investment bonds, if you draw more than it makes the value will go down.

These bonds blur the distinction between your capital and your income in a risky way.

Rubbish. You only blur it if you dont understand it. Its like going down the cashpoint and drawing out £400pm. You dont pay tax on that £400 and that is not income. As long as you dont draw more than it makes, then you wont go down in value.

For reference, Ed promotes income drawdown in pensions in the pensions section which can work exactly the same way as bonds. Strange that its good enough for pensions when Ed promotes it but not here with an investment bond.

Your mother would be better served by investing directly in a portfolio of diversified unit trusts

Possibly. Possibly not. However, your inaccurate assumptions don't help the OP in any way.

The bond wrapper is an unnecessary and expensive addition, serving mainly to increase the commission earned by the advisor, just as it did the first time .

Try reading the post before you respond next time.

The IFA is charging on NMA basis. 1% commission plus 0.5% p.a. That tells you that the IFA would be earning the same regardless of the tax wrapper used. Its one of the key benefits when dealing with an NMA IFA. A fixed charge regardless of the investment type or provider used. There is no bias possible.

You inaccurately accuse this adviser of commission bias, when it is quite clear the only one with bias is you. You don't like it when people seek advice and you will do anything to put them off. Even if it means telling lies.

Wurz · 29 June 2007 at 1:23AM

Wow, dunstonh,interesting.....so you reckon that a years average performance could recoup losses. That's assuming our new leader, the old chancellor, doesn't cause the market to drop even more. Should I bite the bullet and keep the SW's FOB and hope for recovery? I still find it galling that SW's still advertise for people to imvest knowing that this fixed option bond is doing so badly!

jem16 · 29 June 2007 at 8:35AM

whoosh wrote: »

OK, I'll take it from the top:

1) Jem16:

Firstly, I think this is the table you mean - sorry about formatting:

THE EARLY YEARS
At end Total paid Total Total What the
of year to date actual effect of cash in value
(£) deductions deductions might be
to date to date (£)
(£) (£)
1 100,710 2,390 2,390 104,000
2 100,710 1,680 1,820 111,000
3 100,710 0 0 119,000
4 100,710 0 0 127,000
5 100,710 0 0 134,000
THE LATER YEARS
10 100,710 7,570 8,760 171,000
The last line of the table shows that over the period illustrated, the effect
of the total deductions could amount to £8,760. Putting it another way, this
would have the same effect as bringing the investment growth down from 6%
to 5.5% a year.

That's the figure I meant.

I found the table difficult to follow without the formatting as it seems to suggest there are no charges at years 3 - 5. Why is the starting figure £100,710?

Jem16, the figure she'll have is c£100k, and that's what the IFA based his quote on; but he did say to me on the phone that he would suggest using 10% or more for cash withdrawals outside the Bond, and use the rest to leave to grow in the Bond.

Question: if it's £80k, I guess that means the Bond will be much les attractive bc the allocation will be lower...? If so, would it be just proportionately lower or would the reduction be disproportionately greater due to the amount itself being lower? (I.e. is there a ceiling?)

As far as I'm aware the allocation would be lower if it's only £80k as opposed to £100k but I don't know by how much. Perhaps Dunstonh can answer that one?

dunstonh · 29 June 2007 at 9:50AM

this would have the same effect as bringing the investment growth down from 6% to 5.5% a year.

This indicates that the charges over 10 years equate to 0.5% p.a. average. Very low. However, its probable that the illustration only assumes internal Norwich Union funds which are the cheapest funds on the plan but not necessarily the best in all areas. The final quote once the portfolio is built may see that charge increase due to use of external funds. However, it should still end up cheaper than unit trusts.

a) You identify this IFA as a NMA, which I understand from your previous posts to me to mean New Model Adviser. To help me understand: by what criteria do you identify this particular IFA as a NMA?

I am making a bit of an assumption there as NMA is not just a case of lower charges but also investment specialists. We dont know the portfolio that has been built (that will come later in your review) so cannot comment on the investment side. However, the charges seem to fit with NMA.

b) You contrast the benefits of UTs vs Bonds by reference to the maintenance in keeping them working well. I don't care about the relative effort so long as the IFA shoulders that rather than my mother (who needs a slick and transparent process) or myself (I wouldn't fare much better). But this IFA did intimate that little or no work would be needed to monitor or review investment performance in between the annual review, provided the investment was correctly set up.

The bond is low maintenence. What you see is what you get and there is no work required with tax returns in this case. If the unit trust route option is taken, there could be a little less tax paid but it will require tax returns to be completed and more work. If your mother has to pay for that work, then the tax saved could be wiped out by the cost.

This didn't sound very proactive to me; how does it sound to you? If there is at worst a trivial difference in financial benefit between using a bond and using a different vehicle, then such a difference would certainly be offset for my mother by an investment which delivered what she wanted without any hassle.

If the investment portfolio is set correctly to a strategy, then an annual review is fine. There may be the need for interim changes every now and then but annual is the norm.

If unit trusts are used, there will be no increased initial allocation and indeed there will be an initial charge. So, straight away you are looking at a £9000 difference on a £100k investment. So, even if it is say £300 a year worse off in tax, it will take a long time to recover that £9000.

3) edinvestor: my mother has no asset allocation in mind; all she knows is that she needs a decent income. I haven't yet discussed the specifics with the IFA. I trust it would be acceptable and feasible to do so before we actually pay him any commission?

I know you asked Ed but i will answer anyway. The asset allocation is the role of the IFA. Building the portfolio is the time consuming bit so many will not do it until they get some form of commitment. Casual enquiries are not going to get that far. You do not pay any commission. On investment bonds, the commission is not explicit. If he is getting paid £1000 on a 100k investment, NU pay that and then recover the cost of commission over the years in the annual management charge. On unit trusts, the commission is explicit. i.e. £1000 would see £1000 deducted from the investment.

a) How far can we reasonably go sounding him out before we commit to a course of action? (We're not after free advice or up for messing anybody around; but obviously, after the snake-oil advice peddled by the previous IFA, we do need to be careful with her only meaningful assets. Thoughts on this topic welcome.

Concepts and ideas, the investment strategy being used and the asset allocation. By then you should really know whether or not you are happy with the adviser. On 100k, if just one or two funds are used then you can walk away as you know that adviser is not good enough to give proper investment advice. If you get a spread of 8-10 funds built to a defined strategy, then you can feel more comfortable that there is thought being put into the investment.

b) What spread of asset allocation would you look for him to recommend given her cautious nature combined with a need to get long-term income of c£400/month from her £100k?

Cautious can mean different things to different people so that would need some context but it could be anything around 30-40% stockmarket. The rest being bonds, fixed interest, property etc.

As far as I'm aware the allocation would be lower if it's only £80k as opposed to £100k but I don't know by how much. Perhaps Dunstonh can answer that one?

80k will have a lower allocation rate than 100k. It will be 0.5% lower. Possibly 1% if the adviser bases their remuneration around an amount.

Wow, dunstonh,interesting.....so you reckon that a years average performance could recoup losses. That's assuming our new leader, the old chancellor, doesn't cause the market to drop even more.

I dont think you have much if anything invested in the stockmarket. I reckon your investment is heavy in corporate bonds.

Should I bite the bullet and keep the SW's FOB and hope for recovery?

I think the sector allocation of the bond needs reviewing and revised to give you better potential and a more professional approach. Leaving it as it is will see another poor year of performance if it is where I think it is.

I still find it galling that SW's still advertise for people to imvest knowing that this fixed option bond is doing so badly!

You say fixed option bond. Do you mean flexible option bond as that is the IFA scottish widows product?

I need to repeat that it is not the bond that is at fault here. The product isnt the best one available but its not a bad one. It isnt the bond that is performing as it is. It is the investment fund(s) you have in the bond that are. Think of the scot widows bond as a tupperware container. The funds are what you put inside that container. If you put something in the tupperware tub you dont like you dont through the tub way. You change hte contents to something you do like. The bond is one thing. The funds are another.

To put that in perspective, I just looked up a client I did a bond for on a cautious spread at the time you did yours in 2004 (well it was Feb 3rd but close enough) and that was £100k invested in a bond and that has £5000 a year drawn out and is currently worth £138,596. So, as you can see, its not the bond but the investments inside of it.

This is the same for any tax wrapper out there. It doesnt matter if its ISA, pension, bond or unwrapped unit trusts. The wrapper/container doesnt make/lose money. Its where you invest that does.

The adviser you saw was not an investment specialist and LTSB advisers are not allowed to portfolio plan. Take a look at the bond details again and look for the fund(s) you are invested in. You have seen me say that 8-10 funds should be what you are looking for with this investment amount. See how many you are in and let us know what you are in.

The bond you have allows a switch of funds so revising the investment portfolio will be easy once you have a strategy. You can either get this yourself or appoint an IFA to do it for you.

Wurz · 29 June 2007 at 1:20PM

Hi dunstonh, when I first complained in July '06 about the poor performance of Scottish Widows "Flexible Options Bond" I received a letter saying that the bond is invested in the Fixed Interest Fund and "as this fund is unit linked this means the bid price can change daily and go down as well as up" the letter also gave a list of "Funds Available" and info that the "first 12 switches in a policy year are free"
As this meant little to me I went and saw a Lloyds Financial advisor in my local branch (Colchester) who basically said that I was in the lowest risk, the drop of £5k in value "was just a blip" and his advice was to "leave it for a few months and see if it stabilises" In my reply letter to SW's after this meeting I relayed this information and asked "that while I still had £100k invested in SW's (the fund had grown to £106k and then dropped over £5k in a few months-hence my complaint) what can they offer that will preserve capital and give monthly income" The reply skirted this question and went on to say "your bond is invested in the Scottish Widows Fixed Interest Fund the aims of which are to achieve long-term growth by investing mainly in UK fixed-interest securities" The reply also went on to say "the stockmarket fell to its lowest level of 3277.50 in March 2003. Despite the up-turn since March 2003 the value of the FTSE...still declined by 19% between January 2000 and January 2006" As I took the bond in Jan '04 it seems I was sold a declining product! The value stated in the letter was that the bond as at 21st July was worth £101k. I knew that, that was why I had called and written in the first place.
I then went and saw a FA at my other bank who suggested I ask for a Fund Managers Report - this duly arrived from SW's in August '06 and said "as you will recall from my previous letter, your bond is linked to the stockmarket and as such can fluctuate on a daily basis" Still no advice about switching funds or any remedy to halt the loss of capital.
The in January '07 I made a formal complaint (using advice from the other FA) the short version being that I was seeking redress for "very poor initial financial planning and even poorer subsequent service" I could go on, and if you need more detail I can supply, but what I have had is several letters "apologising for delays in replying to you" and culminating in a strange one suggesting I had a meeting with another Lloyds FA where I had discussed everything and had decided to keep the policy for at least the five year period to avoid early surrender penalties. This simply did not happen and I can prove I was on duty on the day this meeting was supposed to have happened.
I feel I have been given umpteen delays fobbing me off that has resulted in my £101k capital in July last year being worth just £94k today. Even less if I cash in and pay the £3k penalty.
Suggestions most welcome as to how to proceed, I haven't had a reply to my letter dated 28th May '07 where I told Lloyds/SW's that the "full review meeting" with their FA had not taken place!

EdInvestor · 29 June 2007 at 1:46PM

What is so depressing about all this is that the most important aspect of the whole process - what the money is invested in - is almost completely ignored. All that is discussed is the wrapper.

the rest is "a matter for the IFA".

Sorry, but if you don't pay close attention to what your advisor is doing with your money - and figuring out whether he has any idea at all about how to invest (many don't) - then the chances are you will pay through the nose and end up with an experience just like Wurz. :mad:

I'm horrified to hear that Wurz's entire fund has been invested in fixed interest inside an investment bond wrapper.There is no way after charges that performance could preserve capital if he was taking 5% income.This is most certainly a missale.

It's totally ridiculous to suggest that "what you see is what you get" applies to investment bond, one of the most opaque products on the planet.

dunstonh · 29 June 2007 at 2:15PM

I'm horrified to hear that Wurz's entire fund has been invested in fixed interest inside an investment bond wrapper.There is no way after charges that performance could preserve capital if he was taking 5% income.This is most certainly a missale.

Its not a mis-sale at all. Tied advisers do not portfolio plan. They will often stick all the money in one fund as that is all their remit to give advice allows. Performance (or lack of) is the issue here and you cannot complain about poor performance.

It's totally ridiculous to suggest that "what you see is what you get" applies to investment bond, one of the most opaque products on the planet.

No tax to worry about and after the initial 5 year tie in, the value is exactly what you will get. Seems straight forward enough to me.

Your problem is that you take some poor examples and assume that they are all like that. In reality, nowadays there is little difference between a unit trust or a bond in the way they invest the money and how they work. You can still pick up some bad examples but you can do that with any product.

Hi dunstonh, when I first complained in July '06 about the poor performance of Scottish Widows "Flexible Options Bond" I received a letter saying that the bond is invested in the Fixed Interest Fund and "as this fund is unit linked this means the bid price can change daily and go down as well as up" the letter also gave a list of "Funds Available" and info that the "first 12 switches in a policy year are free"

Eggs in one basket. Poor investing but quite normal for bank advisers.

As this meant little to me I went and saw a Lloyds Financial advisor in my local branch (Colchester) who basically said that I was in the lowest risk, the drop of £5k in value "was just a blip" and his advice was to "leave it for a few months and see if it stabilises"

Thats all they can say. Bank advisers are not experienced enough to give any more info than that. That is the company line which is drummed into them. It is in part correct but too simplisitic.

I then went and saw a FA at my other bank who suggested I ask for a Fund Managers Report - this duly arrived from SW's in August '06 and said "as you will recall from my previous letter, your bond is linked to the stockmarket and as such can fluctuate on a daily basis" Still no advice about switching funds or any remedy to halt the loss of capital.

Its not invested in the stockmarket. Its in the UK fixed interest sector and has no stockmarket content.

LTSB advisers are not allowed to recommend fund switches. Again, it is outside of their remit.

Suggestions most welcome as to how to proceed

From a regulatory point of view, the bank has done nothing wrong. However, it just highlights how poor tied advice can be sometimes. Your problems can be resolved in no time with an IFA. Based on the limited info we have, your problems could be resolved quite simply. You also need a bit of training to understand a little about investments and how they work. A good IFA can help you with this. Whilst you dont need to be making the investment decisions (that is the job of the IFA), you ought to know what and why the recommendation has been made. There is a solution that could get the product altered, get you into a better fund spread and put around £6k back on the value. So, I suggest you speak with a real investments adviser and not a tied agent for an insurance company.

It is possible that you are just not suited to investing. There will be bad years every now and then were you see a decline and different people react different ways to that. Often knowledge and understanding can make the difference in what you would and should do.

Norwich Union Portfolio Step-down: any good for income for a 63-yr-old?

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free