Author Topic: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?  (Read 7347 times)

Felipe

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« on: December 21, 2015, 01:52:30 PM »
Hello,

I am 23, saving hard (70%+) and working at the brick by brick stage.

I want to know if my Asset Allocation is rational.

40% S&P, 20% Total International, 20% Emerging Markets, 5% Individual Stocks, 5% Peer to Peer, 10% Cash

All funds are admiral with Vanguard and stock indexes, no bonds.
 
All Lending Club is in a Roth.

My indexes are spread throughout taxable, HSA, and 401k.

Thank you.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2015, 01:56:06 PM »
The cash and individual stocks percentages seem a little high. I'd go with 0% and 0%, respectively.

Tyler

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1168
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2015, 02:01:23 PM »
"Rational" depends a lot on your personal goals.  Maybe you can share more about that.

In any case, the first thing I noticed is the high allocation to Emerging Markets.  15-20% of Total International is already invested in EM, so adding another 20% brings your total EM holdings to nearly a quarter of your portfolio.  That's pretty high by most standards. 

Felipe

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2015, 02:35:14 PM »
Thank you
Jack: The cash includes my emergency fund and at 10% is about 1 year of expenses for me at this moment.
The individual stock is currently at 3% of my portfolio and all Berkshire stock.

Tyler: My personal goals are to retire with a 4% safe withdraw and travel the world then start a family or a business that really contributes. I enjoy living very frugally and plan to travel the world by volunteering- Americorps, Peace Corps, etc.- so it won't cost much, if anything. I'm currently working and finishing school (Civil/Environmental Engineering). When I'm raising a family or building a business I'm leaning towards living in an RV or a tiny house.

I agree the emerging markets is high but I feel International overweighs Europe and Japan, because they each produce far less than China or India will in my lifetime. Those will have the largest populations in the world and I can't imagine that as the countries progress (get internet, solar, sort out political structures), they won't grow at a faster rate than the developed markets.

I plan to hold the indexes for at least several decades. I'm comfortable with a quarter of my portfolio being in Emerging Markets and the extra risk this entails.

johnny847

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
    • My Blog
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2015, 07:23:54 PM »
Thank you
Jack: The cash includes my emergency fund and at 10% is about 1 year of expenses for me at this moment.
The individual stock is currently at 3% of my portfolio and all Berkshire stock.

If this cash is part of your emergency fund it is by definition NOT part of your investment portfolio. Don't include it as such!

I agree the emerging markets is high but I feel International overweighs Europe and Japan, because they each produce far less than China or India will in my lifetime. Those will have the largest populations in the world and I can't imagine that as the countries progress (get internet, solar, sort out political structures), they won't grow at a faster rate than the developed markets.

I plan to hold the indexes for at least several decades. I'm comfortable with a quarter of my portfolio being in Emerging Markets and the extra risk this entails.

And as Jack said, you're very heavily weighted in EM. A total international index fund by definition doesn't overweight Europe and Japan. They are market cap weighted - each country is represented in proportion to their market cap. If China and India do experience large growth in our lifetime, then their portion of a total international index fund will increase proportionately. This is the beauty of a market cap weighted index.

Now if you truly believe that EM will outperform total international in the long run, then I'm not going to argue with you (neither of us have a crystal ball). But if you're overweighting EM because you think a total international index overweights Europe and Japan, you're wrong by definition.

tj

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Maui
    • Arcadia Power
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2015, 10:45:04 PM »
If you are goign to split developed and emerging I'd switch Total International to Developed myself. The Vanguard Developed fund is adding Canada and small caps over the next several months. Any reason you picked S&P 500 over a broad US stock index?

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
  • Location: Independent
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2015, 01:01:59 AM »
The cash and individual stocks percentages seem a little high. I'd go with 0% and 0%, respectively.

+1

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2239
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2015, 01:35:04 AM »
Consider replacing S&P 500 with Total Stock Market, which captures mid-cap and small-cap stocks (about 18% and 9%, respectively).

I'd echo the earlier poster who suggested Vanguard Developed Markets (expense 0.09%) replace Total International (expense 0.14%).  Besides expense ratio, there's rebalancing.  Since Total International is about 5/6th developed and 1/6th emerging, it can mix gains and losses.  For example, if developed loses 12% while emerging gains 24%, with separate funds you can sell emerging markets to buy developed.  With total international you only see a combined loss of 6% (5/6 x -12% + 1/6th x +24).  So for lower expenses and crisper rebalancing I'd favor Vanguard Developed Markets to replace Total International.

Mighty-Dollar

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 408
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2015, 01:57:15 AM »
Avoid crowd funding. Private equity bad. You never know when you might be investing in a Ponzi scheme. At best you'll be investing in something that underperforms the benchmark.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28271
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2015, 04:55:35 AM »
The cash and individual stocks percentages seem a little high. I'd go with 0% and 0%, respectively.

I'd put the peer-to-peer at 0% before I put either of those at 0% (in other words, I'd rather hold cash, or some carefully chosen blue chips I'd rather weight more heavily in my portfolio than I'm getting from index funds, than have any P2P in my portfolio).

I would still put those at 0% also, but I'd hold either of those before P2P.

Of course, everyone must choose what makes them comfortable and happy.  :)
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and are now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about us, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

GGNoob

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Colorado
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2015, 12:59:26 PM »
40% S&P, 20% Total International, 20% Emerging Markets, 5% Individual Stocks, 5% Peer to Peer, 10% Cash

All funds are admiral with Vanguard and stock indexes, no bonds.
 
All Lending Club is in a Roth.

With Lending Club in a Roth IRA, it's going to be hard to keep it at a fixed percentage. I'd like to set P2P at a specific percentage of my asset allocation, but when we are contributing so much to our other accounts, it's hard to specify an exact percentage. Maybe someday, but it just won't work easily for me right now.

Write yourself an investment policy statement. Maybe it will say that your Roth IRA contributions will go to Lending Club each year. The rest of your investments, when looking at all accounts as a whole, will be split up in your desired asset allocation. Thats how I do mine anyhow...my preferred Lending Club allocation is its current percentage. The rest of them are a percentage of the remaining available allocation.

When investing in both Total International and Emerging Markets, you are getting more than 20% Emerging Markets. I just want to make sure that is known. You may want to change it to 20% International Developed Markets and 20% Emerging Markets.

SuperSecretName

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2015, 01:00:44 PM »
ditto to EM being a tad high.

Kaspian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
  • Location: Canada
    • My Necronomicon of Badassity
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2015, 01:07:35 PM »
Actually (and objectively), this isn't a "rational" portfolio.  It's considered "highly aggressive".  Only in the MMM forums is an 85% equities stance considered somewhat normal.  I'd justify the reason for a bond position, but it's been done here a million times and I don't want things thrown at me so close to Christmas. 

SuperSecretName

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2015, 01:12:25 PM »
ditto to EM being a tad high.
Just went back to my spreadsheet, and IMO your EM is very high.  I am about 8% EM (20% of international allocation, which is 40% of portfolio).  I might bump that up to 10% of portfolio, but wow, 25% is going to be tough to stomach and maintain.

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
  • Location: Independent
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2015, 01:14:31 PM »
Actually (and objectively), this isn't a "rational" portfolio.  It's considered "highly aggressive".  Only in the MMM forums is an 85% equities stance considered somewhat normal.  I'd justify the reason for a bond position, but it's been done here a million times and I don't want things thrown at me so close to Christmas.

OP is 23 years old. What purpose would bonds serve in his portfolio? As long as the OP is prepared for high volatility, at his age he should be fine with an aggressive AA, IMO. You're welcome to disagree. I won't throw anything at you. :) If you disagree, please explain your reasoning.

johnny847

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
    • My Blog
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2015, 01:17:26 PM »
Actually (and objectively), this isn't a "rational" portfolio.  It's considered "highly aggressive".  Only in the MMM forums is an 85% equities stance considered somewhat normal.  I'd justify the reason for a bond position, but it's been done here a million times and I don't want things thrown at me so close to Christmas.

The advice of holding your age in bonds is thrown around a lot on the Internet, not just these forums. While the OP is slightly off from that, that's still within the realm of normal.

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
  • Location: Independent
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2015, 01:44:28 PM »
Actually (and objectively), this isn't a "rational" portfolio.  It's considered "highly aggressive".  Only in the MMM forums is an 85% equities stance considered somewhat normal.  I'd justify the reason for a bond position, but it's been done here a million times and I don't want things thrown at me so close to Christmas.

The advice of holding your age in bonds is thrown around a lot on the Internet, not just these forums. While the OP is slightly off from that, that's still within the realm of normal.

OP's not "slightly off from that." He is holding no bonds. 0%. Which is a rational AA for someone who is 23 years old and just starting out.

johnny847

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
    • My Blog
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2015, 01:55:54 PM »
Actually (and objectively), this isn't a "rational" portfolio.  It's considered "highly aggressive".  Only in the MMM forums is an 85% equities stance considered somewhat normal.  I'd justify the reason for a bond position, but it's been done here a million times and I don't want things thrown at me so close to Christmas.

The advice of holding your age in bonds is thrown around a lot on the Internet, not just these forums. While the OP is slightly off from that, that's still within the realm of normal.

OP's not "slightly off from that." He is holding no bonds. 0%. Which is a rational AA for someone who is 23 years old and just starting out.

I will confess I didn't go back and read the OP. But,
1) OP said 10% cash and 5% P2P. Which is fixed income (assuming cash is earning interest). So are bonds
2} I what I should have said is 85% isn't ridiculous for a 23 year old, which Kaspian thinks is too aggressive. It most certainly is not.

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
  • Location: Independent
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2015, 02:07:22 PM »
Actually (and objectively), this isn't a "rational" portfolio.  It's considered "highly aggressive".  Only in the MMM forums is an 85% equities stance considered somewhat normal.  I'd justify the reason for a bond position, but it's been done here a million times and I don't want things thrown at me so close to Christmas.

The advice of holding your age in bonds is thrown around a lot on the Internet, not just these forums. While the OP is slightly off from that, that's still within the realm of normal.

OP's not "slightly off from that." He is holding no bonds. 0%. Which is a rational AA for someone who is 23 years old and just starting out.

I will confess I didn't go back and read the OP. But,
1) OP said 10% cash and 5% P2P. Which is fixed income (assuming cash is earning interest). So are bonds
2} I what I should have said is 85% isn't ridiculous for a 23 year old, which Kaspian thinks is too aggressive. It most certainly is not.

You're right. The P2P could be considered bonds, so he's at 5%. I agree with you that 85% isn't too much exposure to equities at OP's age. If I were the OP, I'd be at 100% equities.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2015, 02:10:33 PM »
Actually (and objectively), this isn't a "rational" portfolio.  It's considered "highly aggressive".

"Highly aggressive" is perfectly rational, if your time horizon is long enough (and for a 23-year-old Mustachian, I think it is). My only concern about the emerging markets tilt is whether or not it's on the efficient frontier (i.e., whether the risk is adequately compensated for by higher return). I don't know enough about emerging markets to answer that question, so I won't opine about it.

Kaspian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
  • Location: Canada
    • My Necronomicon of Badassity
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2015, 02:19:54 PM »
Knew I'd have the shit thrown at me.  If you could all take of your 'staches for two seconds and remember that just 5 years ago a 60/40 split was considered prudent and normal by all accounts.  It's what was (is?) called "balanced".

What purpose would bonds serve in his portfolio? As long as the OP is prepared for high volatility,

You answered the question immediately after posing it. 

And I never said 85% was "ridiculous", Johnny947.  I do think our aggressive stance on these forums might not be 100% "rational".  (And certainly not "moderate" either.)  ...But I'm not arguing against popular opinion here.    It (myself included) is full on not-so-normal people. 

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
  • Location: Independent
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2015, 02:23:00 PM »
See, nobody threw anything at you....... yet. :)

johnny847

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
    • My Blog
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2015, 02:42:12 PM »
Knew I'd have the shit thrown at me.  If you could all take of your 'staches for two seconds and remember that just 5 years ago a 60/40 split was considered prudent and normal by all accounts.  It's what was (is?) called "balanced".

What purpose would bonds serve in his portfolio? As long as the OP is prepared for high volatility,

You answered the question immediately after posing it. 

And I never said 85% was "ridiculous", Johnny947.  I do think our aggressive stance on these forums might not be 100% "rational".  (And certainly not "moderate" either.)  ...But I'm not arguing against popular opinion here.    It (myself included) is full on not-so-normal people.

If you're saying it's not rational, then it's irrational. Which would make it ridiculous.

Furthermore you're ignoring my point that it's not just these forums saying that 85% or greater in stocks would be rational. You make it seem like it's just us on the forums that advocate 85%+ in stocks for a 23 year old.

Googling age in bonds returns some results that advocate for more than age in bonds....
Investopedia advocates more than age in bonds
Financial Samurai advocates age - 20 in bonds
Business Insider advocates age-10 or age-20 in bonds

Also, there is a perfectly rational explanation for advocating for higher stock percentages on this forum. Many people here want to retire early. If you  want your portfolio to last 40, 50, 60 years (or even longer), maintaining a high percentage in stocks is critical. See here.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 02:44:36 PM by johnny847 »

Tyler

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1168
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2015, 04:17:14 PM »
The typical "age in bonds" advice is generally based on the assumption that your only two investing options are a total stock market fund and a total bond market fund.  Based on that assumption, I'd probably agree.  But since I find that assumption kinda silly in today's investing marketplace with the wide variety of options available, I also disagree with the conclusion. 

There are many asset allocations out there with a wide variety of stock and bond percentages that do quite well regardless of age.  The percentage of stocks or bonds is not always a good predictive measure of the volatility and returns of a diverse portfolio with three or more asset classes.  The specific stocks and bonds you select matter, and other assets (commodities, REITs, etc) play a role as well.

If you  want your portfolio to last 40, 50, 60 years (or even longer), maintaining a high percentage in stocks is critical. See here.

For a different perspective, try this.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 09:18:02 PM by Tyler »

johnny847

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3192
    • My Blog
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2015, 04:23:13 PM »
The typical "age in bonds" advice is generally based on the assumption that your only two investing options are a total stock market fund and a total bond market fund.  Based on that assumption, I'd probably agree.  But since I find that assumption kinda silly in today's investing marketplace with the wide variety of options available, I also disagree with the conclusion. 

There are many asset allocations out there with a wide variety of stock and bond percentages that do quite well regardless of age.  The percentage of stocks or bonds is not always a  good predictive measure of the volatility and returns of a diverse portfolio with three or more asset classes.  The specific stocks and bonds you select matter, and other assets (commodities, REITs, etc) play a role as well.

If you  want your portfolio to last 40, 50, 60 years (or even longer), maintaining a high percentage in stocks is critical. See here.

For a different perspective, try this.

I was never advocating age in bonds or some variant thereof as good advice. I only brought it up to make the point that it's not just Mustachian advocating for a high percentage in stocks.

Your link only tested 40 year drawdowns.

Tyler

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1168
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2015, 04:33:59 PM »
I was never advocating age in bonds or some variant thereof as good advice. I only brought it up to make the point that it's not just Mustachian advocating for a high percentage in stocks.

No worries.  High percentages of stocks do work well for many people.  But there are other equally rational ways to approach the problem as well.

BTW, if you're worried about portfolio longevity beyond 40 years, poke around the site at the link and you'll also find data for sustainable withdrawal rates that maintain initial principal rather than spend it down.  Like I said, there are different ways to approach the same problem. 

In any case, let's get back to the OP.  The EM allocation may be a little high for my tastes but clearly you understand what you're buying.  Running the historical numbers, your portfolio (minus P2P and individual stocks that I can't quantify) is actually slightly less volatile than the total stock market alone so it doesn't seem too crazy.  Limiting the active stuff to 10% of your portfolio also seems reasonable to me.  So nothing you're proposing gives me reason to try to talk you out of it if you truly believe it will work for you. 
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 09:53:03 PM by Tyler »

Kaspian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
  • Location: Canada
    • My Necronomicon of Badassity
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #26 on: December 23, 2015, 12:40:01 PM »
Knew I'd have the shit thrown at me.  If you could all take of your 'staches for two seconds and remember that just 5 years ago a 60/40 split was considered prudent and normal by all accounts.  It's what was (is?) called "balanced".

What purpose would bonds serve in his portfolio? As long as the OP is prepared for high volatility,

You answered the question immediately after posing it. 

And I never said 85% was "ridiculous", Johnny947.  I do think our aggressive stance on these forums might not be 100% "rational".  (And certainly not "moderate" either.)  ...But I'm not arguing against popular opinion here.    It (myself included) is full on not-so-normal people.

If you're saying it's not rational, then it's irrational. Which would make it ridiculous.

Furthermore you're ignoring my point that it's not just these forums saying that 85% or greater in stocks would be rational. You make it seem like it's just us on the forums that advocate 85%+ in stocks for a 23 year old.

Googling age in bonds returns some results that advocate for more than age in bonds....
Investopedia advocates more than age in bonds
Financial Samurai advocates age - 20 in bonds
Business Insider advocates age-10 or age-20 in bonds

Also, there is a perfectly rational explanation for advocating for higher stock percentages on this forum. Many people here want to retire early. If you  want your portfolio to last 40, 50, 60 years (or even longer), maintaining a high percentage in stocks is critical. See here.

And not a SINGLE one of those references includes actual investor behaviour versus plain old number crunching.  They also (intentionally?) exclude rebalancing the over-performers every year.  New/young investors are far more likely to screw with their portfolio or completely quit if the balance drops by a few thousand bucks.   The main reason portfolios fail is not having too many bonds, it's the investor themselves.

Plus....  I'll just drop this (again) here.  All I can say is it rebalanced extremely nicely into equities when they were underwater.

Playing with Fire UK

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2015, 02:46:59 AM »
I also have a high exposure to EM, similar theory to the OP. Not saying this is the Absolute Truth of Rational AA, but the OP isn't alone.

I think there was a point that was missed. The International fund is weighted to the current market cap, the OP (and I) think that EM will grow more quickly. I'm looking for something closer to the future market cap (that I am guessing), which means more EM than a Global tracker. I'd rather have a higher % now so I enjoy more of the growth than add it later after the growth. People don't need to agree, but there is logic behind overweighting EM.

I think that zero bonds is more compatible with a high exposure to EM and buying individual stocks at 23 than 23%/13% bonds. It all speaks to a level of risk tolerance that the OP seems to understand and be happy with. The critical thing for both is not to flinch when the market goes south; one way to address this is rebalancing with bonds, another is just not to sell the stocks. Would this be a good idea for someone who is 64 and required to buy an annuity next year? - of course not. Clearly forum readers would do things differently for themselves - this is excellent and interesting, but poor evidence that the OP should change the AA.

NorCal

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #28 on: December 28, 2015, 11:06:03 PM »
It's a rational allocation, as long as you're okay with the risk profile.  It's riskier than I'd personally invest in, but everyone has their own tolerance.

How long have you been investing?  My one general piece of advice is to NOT have anything more aggressive than a 60/40 portfolio until after you've invested through your first real stock market downturn.  You don't know how you'll really react to half your portfolio vaporizing until you've seen it happen.  Many many people that say they will "never sell" go into a straight panic.  It happened to me, and a lot of other people I know.  Keep it conservative until you've seen this happen to your own portfolio at least once.

StacheEngineer

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Is This a Rational Asset Allocation?
« Reply #29 on: December 29, 2015, 09:23:14 PM »
I also have a high exposure to EM, similar theory to the OP. Not saying this is the Absolute Truth of Rational AA, but the OP isn't alone.

I think there was a point that was missed. The International fund is weighted to the current market cap, the OP (and I) think that EM will grow more quickly. I'm looking for something closer to the future market cap (that I am guessing), which means more EM than a Global tracker. I'd rather have a higher % now so I enjoy more of the growth than add it later after the growth. People don't need to agree, but there is logic behind overweighting EM.


As a note, just because EM economies grow faster than the global does not imply emerging market equities will provide a higher return than say US equities. For example, emerging markets growing might just buy more Apple products say which means Apple stock will rise but emerging market equities will now. As an example of this point, probably one of the best ways to have bet on emerging market growth in the past 10 years would have been in commodities. Secondly, emerging markets do not have a history of having strong public equity markets and even if emerging market companies grow strongly, they might remain in private or government hands and not provide returns to public equity holders.

Note: I am 30% total international and then an extra 5% EM of my entire asset allocation.