About


Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.

Take On Payments

January 8, 2018


Consolidated Mobile Banking and Payments Survey Results Published

In earlier posts, we published highlights of the 2016 Mobile Banking and Payments Survey of Financial Institutions in the Sixth District results as well as a supplement showing the results by financial institution (FI) asset size. The survey was designed to determine the level and type of mobile financial services that FIs offered and to find out what plans FIs had to offer new services.

Six other Federal Reserve Banks also conducted the survey in their districts, and we've combined all the data into a single report. Marianne Crowe and Elisa Tavilla of the Boston Fed's Payment Strategies group led the team that consolidated the data. The report—now available on the Boston Fed's website—addresses mobile banking and payment services from the perspective of the FI. The report offers additional value with its inclusion of a large number of small banks and credit unions (under $500 million in assets), a group from which data are often difficult to obtain.

Consolidated-survey-respondents-by-asset-size

The seven districts participating were Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Richmond. A total of 706 FIs responded.

Here are some of the key learnings from survey responses regarding mobile banking:

  • Retail mobile banking offerings are approaching ubiquity across financial institutions in the United States. Eighty-nine percent of respondents currently offer mobile banking services to consumers, and 97 percent plan to offer these services by 2018.
  • By the end of 2018, 77 percent of bank and 47 percent of credit union respondents will be providing mobile banking services to nonconsumers including commercial and small businesses, government agencies, educational entities, and nonprofits. Commercial and small businesses will be the most prevalent.
  • Among FIs offering and tracking business mobile banking adoption, more than half still have adoption rates of less than 5 percent.
  • The most important mobile banking security concern that respondents cited is the consumer's lack of protective behavior. In response, FIs have implemented a range of mitigating controls. To enhance security and help change consumer behavior, more than 80 percent of respondents support inactivity timeouts and multi-factor authentication (MFA) as well as mobile alerts.

And here are some important findings regarding mobile payments:

  • Implementation of mobile payment services is growing as FIs respond to competitive pressure and industry momentum. In addition to the 24 percent already offering mobile payments, 40 percent plan to do so within two years. However, the current offering level fell substantially short of the expected 57 percent predicted by the responses to the 2014 survey.
  • Mobile wallet implementations are increasing steadily, with Apple Pay as the current leader.
  • Enrollment and usage remain low. Eighty-one percent of the respondents had fewer than 5 percent of their customers enrolled and actively using their mobile payment services.
  • Asset size makes a difference in many areas: larger FIs have greater resources to expend on new services, implementations, and security technologies and controls.
  • Banks and credit unions often differ in approaches and strategies for mobile payments.

We will conduct the survey again this year and are eager to see how the mobile banking and payments landscape has changed. If you have any questions about the survey results, please let us know.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

January 8, 2018 in banks and banking, mobile banking, mobile payments, payments study | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

January 2, 2018


2017 Year-End Review

In December 2013, the Retail Payments Risk Forum began an annual tradition of authoring an end-of-year post highlighting what we consider to be the most significant payment topics or events of the year. We continued that tradition this year, but we changed our platform, instead covering our top events in our Talk About Payments webinar series. Watch a recording of the webinar's presentation.

We encourage you to listen to the webinar, during which we discussed in more detail the following key payment stories of 2017:

  • Fraud schemes
  • Data breaches
  • Chip migration
  • Payments security
  • Same-day ACH–phase II
  • Person-to-person payments
  • Fintech
  • Mobile payments
  • Virtual currency/Distributed ledger

As we begin 2018, we in the Risk Forum look forward to continuing our efforts to mitigate payments risks through industry collaboration and convening. We will also continue to offer our insights using multiple platforms, including this weekly blog and our quarterly webinar series, Talk About Payments. As always, we value your feedback and comments, so do not hesitate to reach out to any of the Risk Forum team members.

Best wishes for a happy, and fraud-free, new year from all of us at the Retail Payments Risk Forum!

Photo of Mary Kepler
Mary Kepler
Photo of Julius Weyman
Julius Weyman
Photo of Doug King
Doug King
Photo of David Lott
Dave Lott
Photo of Jessica Trundley</span>
</div>
Jessica Washington
Photo of Steven Cordray
Steven Cordray

 

January 2, 2018 in chip-and-pin, mobile banking, mobile payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

December 11, 2017


Fintechs and the Psychology of Trust

In the 14th century, Chaucer used the word trust to mean "virtual certainty and well-grounded hope." Since then, psychologists have described trust as an essential ingredient for social functioning, which, in turn, affects many economic variables. So how do we define trust in the 21st century, in the age of the internet? In particular, how do fintechs, relative newcomers in the financial services industry and not yet coalesced into an industry, gain the trust of the public? Would they more effectively gain that trust by relying on banks to hold them to certain standards, or by coming together to create their own?

In 2004, social psychologists Hans-Werver Bierhoff and Bernd Vornefeld, in "The Social Psychology of Trust with Applications in the Internet," wrote about trust in relation to technology and systems. They observed that "trust and risk are complementary terms. Risk is generally based on mistrust, whereas trust is associated with less doubts about security." They further explained that trust in technology and systems is based on whether an individual believes the system's security is guaranteed. Psychologically speaking, when companies show customers they care about the security of their information, customers have increased confidence in the company and the overall system. Understanding this provides insight into the development of certification authorities, third-party verification processes, and standardized levels of security.

To understand how fintechs might gain the trust of consumers and the financial industry, it's worth taking a step back, to look at how traditional financial services, before the internet and fintechs, used principles similar to those outlined by Bierhoff and Vornefeld. Take, for example, the following list of efforts the industry has taken to garner trust (this list is by no means comprehensive):

  • FDIC-insured depository institutions must advertise FDIC membership.
  • All financial institutions (FI) must undergo regulator supervision and examination.
  • FIs must get U.S. Patriot Act Certifications from any foreign banks that they maintain a correspondent account with.
  • Organizations with payment card data must comply with the PCI Standards Council's security standards and audit requirements.
  • Organizations processing ACH can have NACHA membership but must follow NACHA Operating Rules and undergo annual audits and risk assessments.
  • The Accredited Standards Committee X9 Financial Industry Standards Inc. has developed international as well as domestic standards for FIs.
  • The International Organization for Standardization has also developed international standards for financial services.
  • The American National Standards Institute provides membership options and develops standards and accreditation for financial services.

FIs have often been an integral part of the standards creation process. To the extent that these standards and requirements also affect fintechs, shouldn't fintechs also have a seat at the table? In addition, regulatory agencies have given us an additional overarching "virtual certainty' that FIs are adhering to the agreed-upon standards. Who will provide that oversight—and virtual certainty—for the fintechs?

The issue of privacy further adds to the confusion surrounding fintechs. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) of 1999 requires companies defined under the law as "financial institutions" to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information. Further, the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Safeguards Rule requires FIs to have measures in place to keep customer information secure, and to comply with certain limitations on disclosure of nonpublic personal information. It's not clear that the GLBA's and FTC's definition of "financial institution" includes fintechs.

So, how will new entrants to financial services build trust? Will fintechs adopt the same standards, certifications, and verifications so they can influence assessments of risk versus security? What oversight will provide overarching virtual certainty that new systems are secure? And in the case of privacy, will fintechs identify themselves as FIs under the law? Or will it be up to a fintech's partnering financial institution to supervise compliance? As fintechs continue to blaze new trails, we will need clear directives as to which existing trust guarantees (certifications, verifications, and standards) apply to them and who will enforce those expectations.

As Bierhoff and Vornefeld conclude, "it is an empirical question how the balance between trust and distrust relates to successful use of the Internet." Although Chaucer was born a little too soon for internet access, he might agree.

Photo of Jessica Washington  By Jessica Washington, AAP, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

 

December 11, 2017 in banks and banking, financial services, innovation, mobile banking | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

December 4, 2017


What Will the Fintech Regulatory Environment Look Like in 2018?

As we prepare to put a bow on 2017 and begin to look forward to 2018, I can’t help but observe that fintech was one of the bigger topics in the banking and payments communities this year. (Be sure to sign up for our December 14 Talk About Payments webinar to see if fintech made our top 10 newsworthy list for 2017.) Many industry observers would likely agree that it will continue to garner a lot of attention in the upcoming year, as financial institutions (FI) will continue to partner with fintech companies to deliver client-friendly solutions.

No doubt, fintech solutions are making our daily lives easier, whether they are helping us deposit a check with our mobile phones or activating fund transfers with a voice command in a mobile banking application. But at what cost to consumers? To date, the direct costs, such as fees, have been minimal. However, are there hidden costs such as the loss of data privacy that could potentially have negative consequences for not only consumers but also FIs? And what, from a regulatory perspective, is being done to mitigate these potential negative consequences?

Early in the year, there was a splash in the regulatory environment for fintechs. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) began offering limited-purpose bank charters to fintech companies. This charter became the subject of heated debates and discussions—and even lawsuits, by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the New York Department of Financial Services. To date, the OCC has not formally begun accepting applications for this charter.

So where will the fintech regulatory environment take us in 2018?

Will it continue to be up to the FIs to perform due diligence on fintech companies, much as they do for third-party service providers? Will regulatory agencies offer FIs additional guidance or due diligence frameworks for fintechs, over and above what they do for traditional third-party service providers? Will one of the regulatory agencies decide that the role of fintech companies in financial services is becoming so important that the companies should be subject to examinations like financial institutions get? Finally, will U.S. regulatory agencies create sandboxes to allow fintechs and FIs to launch products on a limited scale, such as has taken place in the United Kingdom and Australia?

The Risk Forum will continue to closely monitor the fintech industry in 2018. We would enjoy hearing from our readers about how they see the regulatory environment for fintechs evolving.

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

 

December 4, 2017 in banks and banking, financial services, innovation, mobile banking, regulations, regulators, third-party service provider | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

November 6, 2017


My Fingertips, My Data

I am not a user of old-style financial services. While I remember learning how to balance a checkbook, I never had to do it, since I never had checks. Recently, my financial adviser suggested several mobile applications that could help me manage my finances in a way that made sense to me. I researched them, evaluated a few, and decided which one I thought would be the best. I'm always excited to try new apps, hopeful that this one will be the one that will simplify my life.

As I clicked through the process of opening an account with my new financial management app, I entered the name of my financial institution (FI), where I have several accounts: checking, savings, money market, and line of credit. The app identified my credit union (which has over $5 billion in assets and ranks among the top 25) and entered my online banking credentials—and then I was brought up short. The app was asking for my routing and account number. As I said, I don't own any checks and I don't know how to find this information on my credit union's mobile app. (I do know where to find it using an internet browser.) I stopped creating my account at this point and have yet to finish it up.

I later discovered that if I banked with one of the larger banks, for which custom APIs have been negotiated, I would not have been asked for a routing and account number. I would have simply entered my online login details, and I'd be managing my finances with my fingertips already. I started digging into why my credit union doesn't have full interoperability.

In the United States, banking is a closed system. APIs are built as custom integrations, with each financial institution having to consent for third parties to access customer data. However, many FIs haven't been approached, or integration is bottlenecked at the core processor level. It is bottlenecked because if they deny access to customer data (which some do), the FI has no choice in the matter.

New Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) guidance on data sharing and aggregation addresses the accessibility and ownership issue. The upshot of the CFPB's guidance is that consumers own their financial data and FIs should allow sharing of the data with third-party companies. But should doesn't equal will or can.

The CFPB guidance, though not a rule, is in the same vein as the European Union's PSD2 (or Directive on Payments Services II) regulation, whereby FIs must provide access to account information with the consumer's permission. This platform, which represents an open banking approach, standardizes APIs that banks can proactively make available to third parties for plug-and-play development.

While open banking is a regulatory requirement in Europe, market competition is driving North American banks to be very interested in implementing open banking here. An Accenture survey recently found that 60 percent of North American banks already have an open banking strategy, compared to 74 percent of European banks.

It is no surprise that bankers are becoming more comfortable with the shift-in-ownership concept. FIs have been increasingly sharing their customers' data with third parties. Consumer data are what fuel organizations like credit agencies, payment fraud databases, identity and authentication solutions, and anomaly detection services, to name a few. As these ownership theories change, we will also need to see new approaches to security. What are your thoughts about open banking?

Photo of Jessica Washington  By Jessica Washington, AAP, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

 

November 6, 2017 in banks and banking, data security, emerging payments, innovation, mobile banking | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

October 23, 2017


ACH and Consumer-Only Payments: Will the Twain Ever Meet?

For many years, person-to-person (P2P) payment providers have touted the emergence of compelling P2P mobile-based products that exploit some combination of financial institutions (FIs) and fintech providers. Several players have made notable inroads into P2P with certain demographics and use cases, but the overall results in terms of absolute numbers are far from ubiquitous. This post uses hard numbers to explore what progress ACH has made with P2P payments.

During a payments conference earlier this year that showcased findings from the Fed's triennial payments study (here and here), the table below was presented showing the number and value shares of domestic network ACH payments in 2015. The table is complicated because it shows both debit pull and credit push payments by consumer and business counterparties. Despite the complexity, the table distills ACH to its essence by removing details associated with the 14 transaction payment types (known as Standard Entry Class codes) that carry value for domestic payments. Many of these individual codes reflect similar types of payments (for example, three codes are used for converting first presentment checks to ACH). As expected, virtually all payments involve at least one business party to each payment. Consumer-only payments are negligible.

Chart-one

In a typical use case for consumer-only ACH, a consumer transfers funds from one account to another account across financial institutions. As shown in the solid red oval, 0.04 percent of all domestic payments were consumer-to-consumer payments, where the payee initiated a debit to the payer's bank account. For consumer credit push payments, the figure is 0.3 percent. The combined figure rounds to 0.3 percent. On the value side for consumer-only payments (in the dashed red oval), debit pulls, credit pushes, and the combined figure were 0.02 percent, 0.2 percent, and 0.2 percent, respectively. These types of payments typically reflect P2P payments1, when one consumer pushes funds to another consumer.

The next table shows the figures that prevailed in 2012. Given the modest share by both number and value across both years, it is apparent—and interesting—that ACH has made little progress in garnering consumer-only payments. Although ACH is ubiquitous on the receipt side across all financial institutions, it is not so for consumers, given the lack of widely promoted and compelling service offerings from FIs and no standardized form factor like there is for card payments. Additionally, many small FIs do not offer ACH origination services.

Chart-two


This lack of adoption is not unique to ACH. Although some of the electronic P2P entrants are experiencing significant growth, it will be some time before they supplant the billions of P2P cash and check payments. P2P players on the FI-centric side include Zelle, which a large consortium of banks owns. Non-FI providers include PayPal and its associated Venmo service. Given the lack of ubiquity with the new offerings, the fallback option for consumer-only payments is cash and checks. As the payments study reports, check use is still declining, though the most recent trend shows that this decline has slowed. ACH or other electronic options still seem a good bet to continue to erode paper options, but perhaps the market is signaling that paper options have ongoing utility and are still preferred if not optimal for some users in some instances.

So what would it take for ACH to gain some traction in the consumer payments space? Perhaps the presence of same-day ACH, in which credits were mandated in September of 2016 and debits followed in September 2017, offers some opportunity for compelling service offerings coupled with a user-friendly way to send an emergency payment to your ne'er-do-well son.

What are your views on the viability of ACH garnering more P2P payments?

Photo of Steven Cordray  By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk  Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

_______________________________________

1 Sometimes account-to-account (A2A) transfers are lumped in with P2P payments.

 

October 23, 2017 in banks and banking, financial services, mobile banking, mobile payments, P2P, payments study | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

September 25, 2017


Fed Payments Webinar Series Launching

One of the comments we consistently received when we conducted the Mobile Banking/Payments Survey last fall was the desire for the Atlanta Federal Reserve to provide more educational opportunities on current payment technologies and issues. Not only have small and mid-sized financial institutions expressed this need, but so have consumer advocacy groups and law enforcement agencies. Educational efforts, along with research, on payment risk issues are at the core of the Retail Payments Risk Forum's overall mission.

In response to these requests, the Risk Forum is launching a webinar series called Talk About Payments (TAP). The TAP webinars will supplement this blog, forums and conferences we convene, and other works we publish on the Forum's web pages. The current plan is for the webinars to be presented once a quarter. Financial institutions, retailers, payment processors, law enforcement, academia, and other payment system stakeholders are all welcome to participate in the webinars. Participants can submit questions during the event.

We will have our first webinar—titled "How Safe Are Mobile Payments?"—on Thursday, October 5, from 1 to 2 p.m. (ET). The webinar will cover such topics as mcommerce growth, mobile wallets, tokenization, fraud attack points, and risk mitigation tools and tactics.

Participation in the webinar is complimentary, but you must register in advance. To register, go to the TAP webinar web page. After you complete your registration, you will receive a confirmation email with all the log-in and toll-free call-in information.

We hope you will join us for our first webinar on October 5, and for our future webinars. If there are any particular topics you would like for us to cover in future webinars, please let us know.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

 

September 25, 2017 in emerging payments, mobile banking, mobile payments, payments risk | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

June 12, 2017


Watching Your Behavior

Customer authentication has been at the core of the Retail Payments Risk Forum's payments risk education efforts from the beginning. We've stressed not only that there are legal and regulatory requirements for certain parties to "know your customer," but also that it is in the best interest of merchants and issuers to be sure that the party on the other end of a given transaction is who he or she claims to be and is authorized to perform that transaction. After all, if you allow a fraudster in, you have to expect that you or someone else will be defrauded. That said, we also know that performing this authentication, especially remotely, has several challenges.

The recently released 2017 Identity Fraud Study from Javelin Strategy & Research estimated that account takeover (ATO) fraud losses in 2016 amounted to $2.3 billion—a 61 percent increase over 2015's losses. (ATO fraud occurs when an unauthorized individual performs fraudulent transactions through a victim's account.) Additionally, new-account fraud on deposit and credit accounts has increased significantly and generated several public warnings from the FBI.

In payments, the balancing act between imposing additional customer authentication requirements and maintaining a positive, low-friction customer experience has always been a challenge. Retailers, especially online merchants, have been reluctant to add authentication modalities in their checkout process for fear that customers will abandon their shopping carts and move their purchase to another merchant with lower security requirements. Some merchants have recently introduced physical biometrics modalities such as fingerprint or facial recognition for online orders through mobile phones. Although these modalities have gained a high acceptance rate, they still require the consumer to actively participate in the authentication process.

Enter behavioral biometrics for online transactions. Behavioral biometrics develops a pattern of a user's unique, identifiable attributes from when the user is online at a merchant's website or using the merchant's proprietary mobile app. Attributes measured include such elements as typing speed, pressure on the keyboard, use of keyboard shortcuts, mouse movement, phone orientation, and screen navigation. Coupled with device fingerprinting for the customer's desktop, laptop, tablet, or mobile phone, behavioral biometrics gives the merchant and issuer a higher level of confidence in the customer's authenticity. Another benefit is that behavioral biometrics is passive—it is performed without the user's involvement, which eliminates additional friction in the overall customer experience. Proponents claim that while it takes several sessions to develop a strong user profile, they can often spot fraudsters' attempts because fraudsters often exhibit certain recognizable traits.

Behavioral biometrics is still fairly new to the market but over the last couple of years, some major online retailers have adopted it as an additional authentication tool. Like any of the physical biometric modalities, no single behavioral authentication methodology is a silver bullet, and multi-factor authentication is still recommended for moderate- and higher-risk transactions.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

June 12, 2017 in authentication, banks and banking, consumer fraud, fraud, mobile banking, payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

March 6, 2017


Asset Size Matters in Survey Responses

A January post highlighted some of the key findings of the 2016 Mobile Banking and Payments Survey conducted in the Sixth District. The post and the related survey report segmented the findings between banks and credit unions to help financial institutions setting strategy for mobile banking and payment services.

As promised, we analyzed the results to each of the questions based on the reported overall asset size of the responding financial institutions broken down into five asset range segments. The table shows these segments and the percentage breakdown of the 117 respondents by each segment.

Chart-one

You can find the supplemental data for all the survey questions here. One of the most striking differences among the segments is the institutions’ plans to offer mobile payment services. As the chart shows, the smaller the financial institution, the more likely it is to have no plans to offer mobile payment services within the next two years.

Chart-two

We hope this information will help financial institutions as they evaluate and plan their mobile banking and mobile payment services. Next quarter, we will publish a report consolidating all the data received across the seven Federal Reserve districts that participated in the survey. If you have any questions concerning the Sixth District results, please let us know.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

March 6, 2017 in mobile banking, mobile payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

January 23, 2017


Mobile Banking and Payments Survey Results

In the fall of 2016, the Atlanta Fed and six other Federal Reserve Banks asked financial institutions (FI) in their districts to participate in a survey to determine the level and type of mobile financial services they were currently offering or planning to offer. The Atlanta Fed conducted a similar survey in the district in 2014.

Financial institutions completed 117 surveys; they represent FIs of all sizes and types operating in the district (see chart below). The response rate of 8 percent should provide financial institutions with good directional information when comparing their own mobile banking and payments strategy. You can find the full report here. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston will be preparing a consolidated report for all seven districts later this year.

Chart-one

Key learnings from the responses to this survey include:

  • Mobile banking has become a standard service of financial institutions, with 98 percent indicating they currently or plan to offer mobile banking.
  • Competitive pressure and the retention of existing customers are the primary reasons for offering mobile banking.
  • Consistent with the 2014 survey and numerous other mobile research reports, FIs cite security concerns by consumers as the greatest barrier to mobile banking adoption.
  • FIs identify biometric methodologies as the security tool most likely to be used in their program.
  • Over half (59 percent) currently or plan to support at least one mobile wallet. Their primary reason for offering the service was competitive pressure as mobile payments appear to be gaining traction among some consumers.
  • Most of the survey respondents have a long-term outlook (three years or more) for mobile payments to reach a customer participation level of 50 percent.

Supplemental results breaking the data into the six asset-size segments will be made available in early February. If you have any questions about the survey results, please let us know.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

January 23, 2017 in banks and banking, biometrics, mobile banking | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search



Recent Posts


Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad