CLARK, WILLIAM -Italy April 0711

1

RISK MANAGEMENT FOR A PENSION FUND AFTER THE CRISIS: A CASE STUDY Presented by: William Clark Senior VP and Chief Investment Officer Federal Reserve Office of Employee Benefits

Global Interdependence Center - Italy Conference – April 2011

A little information about the Federal Reserve’s Retirement Plan 2 

Total Assets: 7,536 million (02/28/11)



PBO Funded Status: 88% (12/31/10)



Domestic Equity: 45%



Int’l Developed Equity: 13%



Domestic Fixed Income Long Duration: 26%



Domestic Fixed Income Intermediate: 15%



EROA: 7.25% (arithmetic)



Participants: 43K



Contributions 2010: 580 m/n



Contributions 2011: 420 m/n (projected)

Historically a pension fund’s view of risk centered on the volatility of investment returns 3

Cumulative Returns in a Typical 60/40 Portfolio 180

160

140

120

100

80

60 Dec-2000

Dec-2001

Dec-2002

Dec-2003

Dec-2004

Dec-2005

Dec-2006

Dec-2007

Dec-2008

Dec-2009

Dec-2010

60/40 Asset Portfolio * *Beginning value set to equal beginning value of Towers Watson Pension Index shown on next page.

Overall portfolio returns for the typical plan are heavily influenced by public equity returns.

Now, plans are focusing more on the volatility of funded status (i.e. plan surplus) 4

Cumulative Returns on a Typical 60/40 Portfolio vs. Returns on Plan Surplus 200.00 180.00

160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 Dec-2000

Dec-2001

Dec-2002

Dec-2003

Dec-2004

Dec-2005

Towers Watson Pension Index

Dec-2006

Dec-2007

Dec-2008

Dec-2009

Dec-2010

60/40 Portfolio

The funded status of the typical defined benefit plan is even more volatile because it is heavily influenced by both equity returns and long term interest rates used to discount the liabilities.

Why the volatility of plan surplus is the most appropriate risk measure for pension plans?

5

1.

2.

3.

4.

Drives plan funding costs over time Accounting changes are leading to greater balance sheet/income statement impact  IFRS  US GAAP Tightening regulatory environment focused on funded status Greater emphasis on pension plan funding by the rating agencies

How are pension plan sponsors managing funded status risk?

II. Plans are derisking their Investment Portfolios

6

Pension Plans’ Equity Exposure by Country 80% 70%

74% 64%

60%

66%

61%

55%

49%

50%

65% 55% 41%

40%

38%

33%

37%

30% 20% 10%

0%

US Source: Towers Watson

UK 2000

NETHERLANDS 2005 2010

JAPAN

US plans have historically taken greater funded status risk (i.e. they have higher equity exposures) than comparable plans in other developed markets. Pension plans globally are reducing their exposure to “risky assets”.

How are pension plan sponsors managing funded status risk?

7

III. Diversifying into new asset classes 70% 60% 50% % of Portfolio

40% 30%

59%

56% 48% 38%

40%

37%

37% 32%

26%

20%

28% 20%

24% 24%

15% 16%

10% 0% Public Equity 05

Public Fixed Income 06

07

08

Other

09

Source: CIEBA

Corporate plans (particularly in the US) have increased their allocation to nontraditional asset classes in an attempt to maintain their expected returns while improving portfolio diversification

The economic realities of defined benefit pension costs, however, impact how far plans will/can go to “Derisk” 8

Percent of salary while active needed to fund projected benefit for 35 year old* new hire at the Federal Reserve for various realized investment returns

ANNUAL INVESTMENT RETURN

% OF SALARY NEEDED TO FUND PROJECTED PENSION BENEFITS

10%

3.08%

9%

4.13%

8%

5.56%

7%

7.53%

6%

10.24%

5%

14.01%

0%

74.70%

Typical assumed rate of return for pension plans

*ASSUMES STARTING SALARY OF $75,000, 4% ANNUAL SALARY GROWTH, AND EMPLOYEE RETIRES AT AGE 60.

The economic realities of defined benefit pension costs for the Federal Reserve’s Plan 9

Present value of 20 yrs of Pension Contributions for given future investment returns 6,000 5,000

$MM

4,000 3,000

2,000 1,000 0 4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

Future Investment Return * All other actuarial assumptions are consistent with the Plan’s 12/31/09 actuarial valuation.

Steps that the Federal Reserve has already taken to reduce plan surplus volatility 10

1.

Terminated active balanced account mandates that effectively outsourced asset allocation decisions

2.

Implemented an LDI strategy using TIPS to defease retired life liabilities under the Board benefit structure (about 8% of plan)

3.

Lowered the Plan’s public equity allocation from 65% to 55%; reduction came from the US equity portfolio

4.

Extended duration on approximately 50% of the remaining fixed income portfolio by shifting benchmarks from the Barclays Aggregate to the Barclays Long Gov’t / Credit

Even with these steps, however, this ten year surplus backtest using the current asset allocation shows the volatility of funded status during periods of market stress 11 120.00

100.00

80%

Line is cumulative return

60%

53.68%

40% 80.00

15.05% 5.40%

60.00

0.39%

73.2

20%

1.77% 0%

16.05%

-3.00% -20%

40.00 -27.07% Bar represents each year's

-40%

percentage return 20.00 -54.25% 0.00

-60% -80%

Annual Surplus Return as % of Plan Assets (RHS)

Cumulative Portfolio Surplus Return as % of Plan Assets (LHS)

Determining the initial strategic asset allocation – What is our desired asset allocation from traditional asset classes 12

EFFICIENT FRONTIER PLAN ASSET ALLOCATION 30 20 10

$ MM Projected Return on Plan surplus

0 POTENTIAL TO IMPROVE RISK/RETURN PROFILE OF THE PLAN; MAIN ACTIONS WOULD BE TO FURTHER EXTEND DURATION ON THE BOND PORTFOLIO AND/OR TO SHIFT MORE PUBLIC EQUITIES FROM US TO INTERNATIONAL

-10 -20 -30 -40 -50

CURRENT PORTFOLIO

-60 -70 0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

$ MM Standard Deviation of Plan Surplus

The underlying data for this efficient frontier for each assumed portfolio and the current portfolio are presented on the following page.

Detailed metrics for portfolios on the Plan’s efficient frontier 13 Asset

Current Portfolio A

Portfolio B

Portfolio C

Portfolio D

Portfolio E

Portfolio F

Portfolio G

Portfolio H Portfolio I

Portfolio J

Wilshire - 5000 Composite Index %

37.87

0.00

1.49

5.34

9.20

13.05

16.91

20.77

24.62

28.48

0.00

MSCI - EAFE Index %

11.44

0.00

8.37

14.50

20.64

26.77

32.91

39.04

45.18

51.31

88.00

Total Public Equity %

49.31

0.00

9.86

19.84

29.84

39.84

49.82

59.81

69.80

79.79

88.00

Barclays Capital - U.S. Aggregate Index %

14.07

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

7.93

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Barclays Capital Long Gov/Credit %

16.70

88.00

78.14

68.15

58.16

48.17

38.18

28.19

18.20

8.21

0.00

Total Fixed Income %

38.69

88.00

78.14

68.15

58.16

48.17

38.18

28.19

18.20

8.21

0.00

Citigroup Global Markets Pension Liability Index %

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

Annual Surplus Return $ mm

-52.56

-56.32

-38.57

-23.22

-10.22

0.47

8.89

15.09

19.12

21.06

18.84

Annual Surplus Risk $ mm

793.51

113.97

208.02

329.77

457.42

587.15

717.82

849.00

980.49

1,112.17

1,257.04

-0.07

-0.49

-0.19

-0.07

-0.02

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.01

Surplus VAR 95% Annual $ mm

1,305.32

187.48

342.19

542.47

752.46

965.86

1,180.81

1,396.61

1,612.90

1,829.52

2,067.83

PV of 20 years future contributions $ mm

3,709.93

4,199.53

3,994.23

3,787.46

3,598.12

3,408.79

3,177.67

2,945.66

2,725.95

2,507.73

2,334.71

Barclays Capital - U.S. Long TIPS Index %

Return/Risk

For each Portfolio, the charts below depict the range of projected Plan surplus using Monte Carlo simulations for five and ten years with planned annual contributions for 2011 and 2012 14

Notice: how the range of simulated surplus outcomes doesn’t widen until we reach the very “high risk� asset allocations.

Ten Years

Plan surplus $000

Five Years

Each bar represents the range between the 10th and 90th percentiles of funded status for each assumed portfolio. The simulation also incorporates expected benefit payments over the projection period. The detailed results of these simulations are presented on the following page.

Another approach is to look at the various factors that drive surplus volatility. This factor analysis is based on ten year actual data (rather than the normative assumptions presented earlier) and shows the contribution to surplus volatility from four major factor groups.

15 Surplus Volatility Attribution

Surplus Volatility $MM

2,000 1,500 1,000

Other

500

Rates

Spreads Equity

0 -500 Current

A

B

C

D

E Portfolio

F

G

H

I

J

Current

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

Equity

520

0

82

188

301

417

534

651

769

888

956

Rates

694

269

337

396

453

510

565

621

676

731

744

-118

93

61

26

-9

-41

-72

-103

-133

-163

-189

30

0

4

12

23

32

43

54

64

75

178

1,126

363

484

622

768

918

1,069

1,223

1,377

1,532

1,688

Spreads Other Total

We should also evaluate stress test results in order to assess the exposure of plan surplus to shocks from financial market factors 16 

 

In order to calculate the hypothetical P&L that portfolios would sustain in scenarios where various aspects of the market environment may be shocked, we employ a similar methodology as is used in VAR models.

These sensitivities are then aggregated to give a portfolio-level view of exposures to each risk factor Stress scenarios are defined as a set of shocks to these risk factors. By combining the factor exposures and shocks to each risk factor, we can derive the expected P&L from a given stress scenario

Stress Test Scenario

Historical Period

1. Great Recession

December 3, 2007 – March 9, 2009

2. Summer ’03 – Treasury Backup 3. Hypothetical Inflation

4. Hypothetical Deflation

5. Long Term Capital Management

June 13 – Jul 31, 2003

Description of event Starting date for this scenario is the official beginning of the latest recession in the US. The end date is the lowest point of S&P 500 in the recent decade.

Treasury sell-off.

N/A

Short-term US inflation and nominal rates increase dramatically, mortgage spreads widen, S&P is unchanged.

Shocks for the other factors in the risk model were derived using their historical correlations with the constrained factors.

N/A

Oil price is kept unchanged. The 10 year break even inflation rate drops 200 bps. The 10 year nominal rate drops to historical lows while short-term nominal rates are held constant. Agency mortgage rate spreads tighten.

Oct 2 – Oct 9, 1998

Credit & liquidity crisis stemming from the collapse of Long Term Capital Management. Simultaneous increase in treasury rates and credit spreads with significant jump in implied volatility.

Great Recession stress test results 17

December 2007 – March 2009 Surplus portfolio attribution Asset and liability attribution to surplus (bps)

Asset and liability attribution to surplus (bps)

December 2007 – March 2009 Asset and liability portfolio attribution

2,000 0 -2,000 -4,000 -6,000 -8,000 -10,000 Liability

A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2,000 0 -2,000 -4,000 -6,000

-8,000 -10,000 A

1

2

3

4

Equity

Spreads

Foreign Exchange

6

7

8

9

Portfolio

Portfolio Rates

5

10

Inflation FI Volatility

Rates

Equity

Spreads

Foreign Exchange

Inflation FI Volatility

Equity market performance was the reason that surplus fell significantly during this period. Liability values fell to a lesser extent as credit spread widening more than offset the impact of declining Treasury rates.

10

Hypothetical deflation stress test results 18

Hypothetical deflation Surplus portfolio attribution

1,500

500

1,000

0 -500

500 0 -500 -1,000 -1,500 -2,000 Liability

A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Asset and liability attribution to surplus (bps)

Asset and liability attribution to surplus (bps)

Hypothetical deflation Asset and liability portfolio attribution

-1,000 -1,500 -2,000 -2,500 -3,000 -3,500 A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Portfolio Portfolio Rates

Equity

Spreads

Foreign Exchange

Inflation

FI Volatility

Rates

Equity

Spreads

Foreign Exchange

Inflation

FI Volatility

Primary reasons that surplus is falling are that both Treasury interest rates and equities are falling.

9

10

Evaluating the potential benefits of new asset classes, hedging instruments and strategies 19 Goal is to potentially improve risk/return trade off by: - new asset classes - new instruments (derivatives) - new investment strategies - efficient frontier w/current asset classes

30 20 10

0 -10 Plan Surplus -20 Return $MM -30 -40 -50

-60 -70

0

200

400

600 Plan Surplus Risk $MM

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

How new hedging instruments could potentially improve the plan’s risk/return profile 20

Example: Interest Rate Swaps

Efficient Frontier with and without fixed receiver swaps (25% overlay) 120 100 80 60

40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 0

200

400

600 with maximum 25% overlay

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Current

By entering into fixed receiver swaps, the risk/return profile is improved as a result of better hedging of the Plan’s liabilities. Assumes a maximum hedge of 25% of plan liabilities. Swaps are modeled as a long fixed rate bond and short cash position. Does not incorporate impact from collateral posting for margin requirements.

This compares the historical performance of our current allocation versus an assumed portfolio with a maximum 25% swap overlay 21 140.00 120.00 99.1

100.00 80.00

73.2

60.00

40.00 20.00 0.00

Swap Overlay

Current Portfolio Surplus

The assumed portfolio modeled here is Portfolio F from the efficient frontier shown on the previous page. The surplus risk level of this portfolio is closest to the surplus risk level of the current portfolio.

This compares the factor response curves to changes in value of the pension liabilities for the current portfolio and the assumed portfolio with a 25% swap overlay 22

8.00% 6.00% 4.00%

6.37% 6.03%

3.71% 2.36%

2.00%

0.61% 0.97% 0.53%

1.55%

0.00%

-1.6%

-2.00% -4.00%

2.68%

-2.13% -3.49% -3.45%

-4.70%

-6.00%

-6.32%

-8.00%

Worst 20%

2nd Quintile

Factor Quintile Average Value

3rd Quintile

Current Portfolio Average Perf.

4th Quintile

Best 20%

Assumed with Swap Overlay Avg. Perf.

Another potential use of derivatives: Using the VIX as a hedge for equity and credit risk in the portfolio 23

Factor response curve to the VIX index for our current portfolio 40.00% 30.00%

30.36%

20.00% 10.00% 3.70%

1.41%

0.00% -8.84%

7.11%

-1.93% 0.59%

-1.44% -4.73%

-10.00% -20.00%

-20.40%

-30.00% Worst 20%

2nd Quintile

Factor Quintile Average Perf.

3rd Quintile

4th Quintile

Best 20%

Current Portfolio Average Perf.

Of all the factor response curves that we analyzed, the VIX provides the best hedge for plan surplus against adverse market movements in equities and credit spreads.

How new investment strategies could potentially improve the plan’s risk/return profile 24

Example: Representative Basket of Hedge Fund Strategies

Efficient Frontier with and without a Diversified Basket of Hedge Fund Strategies 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 -10.00 -20.00 -30.00 -40.00 -50.00 -60.00 -70.00 0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

with Hedge Fund Basket

800.00

1,000.00

1,200.00

1,400.00

Current

These hedge funds strategies could potentially improve returns by generating true alpha, resulting in equity-like returns with fixed income volatility.

This compares the historical performance of our current allocation with an assumed portfolio containing 18% in hedge funds 25 140.00 120.00 100.00 86.7

80.00

73.2

60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00

With Hedgefunds

Current Portfolio Surplus

The assumed portfolio being modeled here is Portfolio F from the efficient frontier on the previous page. This portfolio has a surplus risk level that is comparable to our current portfolio.

This compares the factor response curves of the current portfolio and the assumed portfolio with an 18% allocation to hedge funds 26

Factor response curves to changes in the value of the pension liabilities 8.00%

6.37%

6.00% 4.00%

6.03% 5.47% 2.36%

2.00% 2.14%

0.53% 0.97%

-1.58%

0.59%

0.00%

-2.00% -4.00%

2.68%

-3.00% -4.70% -3.45%

-5.21%

-6.00% -6.32%

-8.00% Worst 20%

2nd Quintile

Factor Quintile Average Perf.

3rd Quintile Current Portfolio Average Perf.

4th Quintile

Best 20%

Portfolio with Hedge Funds Perf.

Side bar: Are these hedge fund assumptions (particularly for alpha generation) realistic?

27

Based on one academic study they are, but investors are paying dearly for alpha Pre-Fee Strategy Returns* CV Arb 10.76 Emerging 12.51 Equity Market Neutral 10.34 Event Driven 11.91 Fixed Inc. Arb 9.72 Global Macro 11.08 L/S Equity 13.99 Managed Futures 7.79 Short 1.17 Overall Equally Weighted 11.13

Fees* 3.35 3.70 3.27 3.58 3.14 3.42 4.00 2.76 1.50 3.43

Post-Fee Systematic Alpha/Fee Info Sharpe Return Alpha Beta Return Ratio Ratio Ratio 7.41 2.79 4.61 0.83 0.45 0.97 8.81 4.66 4.15 1.26 0.39 0.64 7.08 2.86 4.21 0.88 1.01 2.24 8.33 3.94 4.39 1.10 0.96 1.41 6.57 2.91 3.67 0.92 0.67 1.43 7.67 2.54 5.13 0.74 0.39 1.14 9.99 4.79 5.20 1.20 0.71 1.02 5.03 0.57 4.46 0.21 0.06 0.52 -0.34 1.91 -2.25 1.28 0.15 0.08 7.70

3.00

4.70

0.88

0.60

1.13

*Source: “The ABC’s of Hedge Funds: alphas, betas & costs”; Ibbotson, Chen and Zhu; July 2010; based on data from Jan. 1995-Dec. 2009

Note: the return numbers presented here are adjusted by the researchers for survivor bias and backfill bias.

The need for tactical asset allocation: risk levels change over time, sometimes violently 28

Example: Based on current “real time� assumptions that would have been used based on market conditions in Dec 2008, the plan surplus efficient frontier would have looked very different than using normative assumptions 29

Year End 2008

250.00 200.00 150.00

Surplus Return $MM

100.00

The range of risk levels increased significantly in late 2008, but there was still the opportunity to increase expected returns at comparable levels of risk.

50.00 0.00 -50.00 -100.00 0.00

500.00

1,000.00

1,500.00

2,000.00

2,500.00

3,000.00

Surplus Risk $MM Year End 2008

Current Using Normative Assumptions

The charts on the following pages outline the differences between our normative risk and return assumptions and those that would have been used in Dec 2008.

This compares the asset allocations along the efficient frontier under both sets of assumptions 30

Portfolio Allocations using 2008 Assumptions Asset

Portfolio 1

Portfolio 2

Portfolio 3

Portfolio 4

Portfolio 5

Portfolio 6

Portfolio 7

Portfolio 8

Portfolio 9

Portfolio 10

Wilshire - 5000 Composite Index (Full Cap)

0.00

6.49

12.38

18.10

23.63

29.17

34.70

40.24

45.77

0.00

MSCI - EAFE Index ($Net)

0.00

3.02

6.62

10.97

16.13

21.29

26.46

31.62

36.78

88.00

Barclays Capital - U.S. Aggregate Index

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Barclays Capital - U.S. TIPS Index

0.69

26.34

51.12

58.93

48.24

37.54

26.84

16.14

5.45

0.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

Barclays Capital - U.S. Corporate Long Index*

87.31

52.14

17.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Return

-0.72

0.18

0.98

1.67

2.22

2.64

2.94

3.12

3.19

2.59

0.66

3.54

6.79

10.11

13.74

17.52

21.38

25.28

29.20

35.28

Citigroup Global Markets - Pension Liability Index

Risk Surplus Return

-52.56

13.14

71.54

121.91

162.06

192.72

214.62

227.76

232.87

189.07

48.18

258.42

495.67

738.03

1,003.02

1,278.96

1,560.74

1,845.44

2,131.60

2,575.44

Surplus Risk

Portfolio Allocations using Normative Assumptions Asset

Portfolio A Portfolio B

Portfolio C

Portfolio D

Portfolio E

Portfolio F

Portfolio G

Portfolio H

Portfolio I

Portfolio J

Wilshire - 5000 Composite Index (Full Cap) MSCI - EAFE Index ($Net)

0.00

1.49

5.34

9.20

13.05

16.91

20.77

24.62

28.48

0.00

0.00

8.37

14.50

20.64

26.77

32.91

39.04

45.18

51.31

88.00

Barclays Capital - U.S. Aggregate Index

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Barclays Capital - U.S. TIPS Index

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Barclays Capital - U.S. Corporate Long Index Citigroup Global Markets - Pension Liability Index Annual Surplus Return

88.00

78.14

68.15

58.16

48.17

38.18

28.19

18.20

8.21

0.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

-56.32

-38.57

-23.22

-10.22

0.47

8.89

15.09

19.12

21.06

18.84

Annual Surplus Risk

113.97

208.02

329.77

457.42

587.15

717.82

849.00

980.49

1,112.17

1,257.04

Notice we added the Barclays US Corporate Long Index as an eligible sub asset class.

To show how changes in market conditions can influence plan surplus risk, we calculated historical surplus VAR on the current plan asset mix based on assumed returns that would have been used and actual trailing 12-month volatility and correlations 31

Retirement Plan Surplus VAR 95% 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000

800 600

Surplus VAR 95%

The surplus risk level of our current asset mix has fluctuated widely over the past ten years – demonstrating the need to continuously monitor risk and evaluate tactical shifts.

Establish an approach for lowering plan risk levels (i.e., a “derisking glide path�)

32

Criteria

Application

Passage of time

Reduce surplus volatility or VAR by a predetermined percentage each year

Ratio based on funded status requirements

Maintain constant ratio of surplus volatility or VAR to plan surplus

Ratio based on funding requirements to risk

Maintain a constant ratio of PV of 20 yrs. future contributions to surplus VAR

Example : Derisking via a constant reduction in surplus VAR 33

Plan Surplus and actuarially 窶電etermined funding by year assuming a 10% annual reduction in surplus VAR; actual returns equal normative returns 1,500

1180

1062

1,000

Derived Plan Funding 944

826

2011 2012 2013 2014

708

500 0

$420MM $431MM $446MM $465MM

Surplus Surplus VAR

-500 -1,000 -1,500

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

This would result in an approximate reduction in public equity exposure from 55% at year end 2010 to 30% by year-end 2014.

Some final macro thoughts: If pension funds collectively implemented a derisking strategy by buying long-duration bonds, it would effectively serve as a “cap� on long-term interest rates 34

Change in Long-Term Corporate Bond Yields From a 1% Increase in Pension Fund Allocation to Fixed Income AAA Corporate Bonds

Yield Change Adjusted R-Squared

A Corporate Bonds

Nominal

Real

Nominal

Real

-0.48%

-0.55%

-0.33%

-0.46%

0.84

0.87

0.88

0.64

Source: Adequacy of Bond Supply and Cost of Pension Benefits: A Financial Economics Perspective; Y. Julia Xiao and Yinghin Xiao; Society Of Actuaries website

We believe the impact of pension fund derisking is also being felt in the interest rate swap market, where spreads have inverted 35

70

60 50 40

57.50

55.00

52.25 45.25

30 20 10 0 -10

20.63

2 Years

22.63

11.19

5 Years

10 Years

12/31/2005

Present (03/21/11)

-20 -30

-24.06

30 Years