Author Topic: Mutual Funds - Approach  (Read 5540 times)

steadygrowth272

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Mutual Funds - Approach
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:41:37 AM »
I am already invested in a number of stocks; however, I am looking to add to my mutual funds.

I like to be diversified.  I am 27 years of age.

Goals:
Vanguard Emerging Markets (VEIEX) - $10,000 invested
Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 (VFIFX) - $10,000 invested
Vanguard Wellesley (VWINX) - $10,000 invested
Vanguard Healthcare (VGHCX) - $10,000 invested
Vanguard PA Long-Term Tax Exempt (VPAIX) - $10,000 invested
Deutsche Managed Municipal Bond Fund (SMLAX) - $5,000 invested

What is everyone's thoughts on my approch/funds?

I see it as a diversified approach to the next couple of decades.

Reasons:  Rise in the BRICS, safe retirement income, conservative bond/stock mix, healthcare (as baby boomers will be exploding this industry in the coming years), tax-free income (a check a month).

« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 07:43:21 AM by steadygrowth272 »

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4091
  • Location: CT
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2014, 08:32:09 AM »
So you're okay with having a sector specific fund as a part of your portfolio, a rather significant portion with it being 18% of your total portfolio, but want to maintain a conservative bond/stock mix... That isn't a very conservative move.

While any AA is just fine as long as you are accepting all the risks alongside it you seem to be grasping at volatile and potentially risky investments while maintaining a nearly 40% bond position. And although I agree with diversification I think you need to revisit some basics in the investing and consider the fact that at 27 you have 60 years of investing, is now the time for a 40% bond position? If it's because you want to be conservative then why do you have super aggressive equity positions? If you have those to be aggressive then why do you have a 40% bond position? What is your expected return given all this complication and prognostication of various funds?

Dodge

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 790
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2014, 08:44:11 AM »
This is one of the least diverse asset allocations I've seen on here. If you have other solid reasons behind these funds, then that's a different argument, but if you choose them to be as diversified as possible, these choices don't make sense.
If you think you know something, find someone who disagrees and listen to them.

skyrefuge

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 999
  • Location: Suburban Chicago, IL
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2014, 09:01:33 AM »
In addition to everything matchewed said, your method of "diversification" amongst mutual funds is odd, and may not be as "diverse" as you think because many of your funds overlap each other. You're really just making your portfolio complex and confusing, without any real benefit.

For example, Merck is held (in a relatively high percentage) by the Target Retirement (via Total Stock Market), Wellesley, and Healthcare. Many of the international stocks held in Emerging Markets are also held Target Retirement (via Total International Stock Market).

Target Retirement funds make the most sense when you're holding a single fund for your whole portfolio. Holding Target Retirement along with a bunch of other more-narrow funds doesn't make any sense. It generally should be one or the other.

So, simplify. Either by shifting everything to Target Retirement (or your own mix of Total Stock, Total International Stock, and Total Bond), or by keeping your crazy mix but getting rid of the confusing overlaps. (obviously I much more strongly recommend the first option!)

steadygrowth272

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2014, 09:03:40 AM »
A few reasons I chose these founds.  I understand that I am young and can take some risk.  That is my basis for:

Vanguard Emerging Markets
Vanguard Healthcare

Both will have unpredictable ups and downs especially during times like these. However, I argue that both will be winners over the long haul (rise of the BRICS internationally and the aging Baby Boomers in the US as well as Europe).

Vanguard Wellesley is one of the most respected Vanguard funds.  I chose this over Wellington for its reputation over the decades.

Vanguard 2050 I chose as that is spot on for my retirement age goal.  I have read pros/cons to these funds, however, right now I believe it is a safe bet. I can always sell if the cons start to outweight the pros.

As for Vanguard PA Long Term Tax Exempt and Deutsche Managed Municipal Bond Fund, I like to have some of my money invested in tax-free funds. A check a month to be re-invested into other stocks.

As for my overall diversification, I am invested in 10 stocks (aimed primarily at dividend growth).

1.  Coca Cola (COKE)
2.  Exxon Mobil (XOM)
3.  General Electric (GE)
4.  Con Edison (ED)
5.  Altria (MO)
6.  Johnson and Johnson (JNJ)
7.  Pfizer (PFE)
8.  Proctor and Gamble (PG)
9.  Duke Energy (DUK)
10. Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (PEG)

What is your take with these additional details?

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4091
  • Location: CT
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2014, 09:13:18 AM »
Um, that you're rationalizing away what was just said to you? Fine you feel that there will be massive gains in those areas. Then why the bonds? You're 27 looking for growth not income. To put it simply your whole portfolio contradicts itself. I would advise taking a step back and answering the simple "why am I investing?". Build your portfolio to reflect that instead of short term trends such as BRIC concentration and healthcare stocks.

Dodge

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 790
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2014, 09:26:41 AM »
I'm sorry to say it steadygrowth272, but the additional details make everything look significantly worse.

  • Market Timing
  • Possible buying high and selling low, "I can always sell if the cons start to outweight the pros."
  • You're 27 and focusing on dividends?  Tells me you don't understand the role of dividends, or that total return trumps dividends.
  • Purchasing individual stocks at all?  You are virtually guaranteed to underperform the market over your lifetime.
  • Purchasing funds based on reputation
  • Thinking the healthcare fund will increase in value over the years, specifically because of baby boomers, yet thinking this information hasn't already been priced in, when everyone knows about baby boomers.
  • Choosing bond funds specifically to get "A check a month to be re-invested into other stocks", shows a misunderstanding of the role of bonds in your portfolio.

I agree with matchewed, I recommend revisiting the basics of investing:

Make an Investment Policy Statement:

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Investment_policy_statement

Read the following:

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads®_investment_philosophy
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads®_investing_start-up_kit

And at the very least check out the 3-fund portfolio:

http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=88005

Don't take it personally, but I'm not joking when I say this is the worst plan I've ever seen on this forum.  But that's ok!  You came here to ask questions and learn :)  You can do much better that this, and we'll help you along the way.
If you think you know something, find someone who disagrees and listen to them.

skyrefuge

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 999
  • Location: Suburban Chicago, IL
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2014, 09:33:37 AM »
Individually, your rationale for each selection is somewhat reasonable. The problem is that all of those rationales contradict each other!

It's like saying "Cheetos taste good, milk is good for my bones, my brother likes oranges, Twinkies were invented on my birthday, and goat liver is going to be hot new trend in restaurants next year. Thus, I will eat a Cheetos-milk-orange-Twinkie-goat liver sandwich for breakfast every morning". Um, no. That will make you vomit.

You chose Wellesley for its "reputation". Great. Do you know what Wellesley actually is? It's a mix of stocks and bonds (mostly bonds).

You chose Vanguard 2050 because it's your retirement age goal. Great. Do you know what Vanguard 2050 actually is? It's a mix of stocks and bonds (mostly the same stocks and bonds in Wellesley, but shifted more towards stocks).

You like "a check per month" to use to invest in equities. Great. Do you know how that will shift your asset allocation over time? Do you care? Do you even know what your current asset allocation between stocks and bonds is?

You like individual stocks. Not so great, but in this case it doesn't really matter. Because the stocks you're invested in are some of the biggest stocks in the world, and thus, all the mutual funds you're invested in ALSO HOLD THE SAME STOCKS! It's pointless to hold them individually.

Please read the links Dodge posted.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 09:35:53 AM by skyrefuge »

johnhenry

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2014, 10:06:35 AM »

As for my overall diversification, I am invested in 10 stocks (aimed primarily at dividend growth).

1.  Coca Cola (COKE)
2.  Exxon Mobil (XOM)
3.  General Electric (GE)
4.  Con Edison (ED)
5.  Altria (MO)
6.  Johnson and Johnson (JNJ)
7.  Pfizer (PFE)
8.  Proctor and Gamble (PG)
9.  Duke Energy (DUK)
10. Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (PEG)

What is your take with these additional details?

Is this a joke??  :)    Genuinely curious 

You posted a portfolio of funds(with amounts) in your initial question, but forgot to mention these 10 individual stocks???

Then you follow up with this list asking how it changes things.... except you forgot to include how much of each you own.  Minor detail, right?

Your portfolio is diverse the way an ADHD patient's thoughts are diverse :) 

As the the other (very good) responses pointed out, you need to understand portfolio diversity and why it's important before you set out to make your portfolio diverse.

Not trying to be harsh.... If you really are just starting to understand this, we'll point you in the right direction.

GGNoob

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Colorado
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2014, 11:44:12 AM »
I agree with everything Dodge said. Read the links he posted for some good information. Switching to a 3-fund portfolio would be a good idea. If you want to take risk, add some tilt towards small cap and/or emerging markets. If you must invest in individual stocks, keep it at no more than 5-10% of your overall portfolio.

BarkyardBQ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2014, 12:22:15 PM »
You're 27 and focusing on dividends?  Tells me you don't understand the role of dividends, or that total return trumps dividends.

Dodge, question about this statement... and maybe I'm mis-understanding the reasoning. What does a young age have to do with focusing or let's say tilting toward dividends? I can see that dividends are best for income generation but even over the long term aren't they beneficial for growth? For instance, a portfolio that reinvests all dividends and has 40% toward VTI and 20% toward VYM. Both return almost the same dividend, but VYM is about $30 cheaper, the dividends would buy more shares over the long term, VYM diversified by good dividend returning companies and VTI...

I'm playing with our future AA and have been leaning toward the above scenario.


Also the ticker COKE is for Coca-Cola Bottling, not the entire Coca-Cola Co. (KO), share price, dividends, and purpose are completely different.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 01:42:16 PM by zdravé »

NP

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2014, 05:04:14 PM »
As others pointed it out, there appear to be enormous gaps in your understanding of the bigger picture and of the interplay between your investment choices. While your selection of investments is a bit perplexing and probably isn't optimal for your stated goals, in my opinion it isn't so bad that you'd need to get out of those positions very quickly (unless some of the individual stocks are very overweighted).

You could decide to go with a broad index portfolio as has been recommended, but in case you're uneasy about accepting that advice, I suggest you spend at least a few months patiently researching the topic before you make any move. Currently you seem to be in the most dangerous area between the beginner who knows very little but has no illusions about their ignorance and the expert who's aware of the limits of their skill and knowledge.

There's nothing wrong with slice and dice using index funds or moderately tilting your portfolio, but only if it's done carefully and that isn't simple. You can't just pick funds based on their name or reputation, you have understand what each investment really contains, understand the principles behind tilting and crunch the numbers so you get the desired result. If you want to do anything else but broad index investing, you'll have to put in more effort.

Owning a small number of individual stocks is very risky. Read The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham to get a taste of the complexity involved. I wouldn't venture there until I was much much more experienced, and even then it may not be a good idea.

Dodge

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 790
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2014, 05:30:40 PM »
You're 27 and focusing on dividends?  Tells me you don't understand the role of dividends, or that total return trumps dividends.

Dodge, question about this statement... and maybe I'm mis-understanding the reasoning. What does a young age have to do with focusing or let's say tilting toward dividends? I can see that dividends are best for income generation but even over the long term aren't they beneficial for growth? For instance, a portfolio that reinvests all dividends and has 40% toward VTI and 20% toward VYM. Both return almost the same dividend, but VYM is about $30 cheaper, the dividends would buy more shares over the long term, VYM diversified by good dividend returning companies and VTI...

I'm playing with our future AA and have been leaning toward the above scenario.


Also the ticker COKE is for Coca-Cola Bottling, not the entire Coca-Cola Co. (KO), share price, dividends, and purpose are completely different.

No, it is not better for growth.  It doesn't affect growth at all.  When you consider that the price of the stock you own permanently decreases by the price of the dividend, it's easy to see how it all evens out.  There is no difference between selling a portion of your stock for cash, and receiving a cash dividend.

If instead of receiving the dividend, you sold a portion of VYM every quarter, then reinvested by buying more VYM with the money, would you experience higher growth?

Tilting towards dividends just gives you less diversification, and more risk.
If you think you know something, find someone who disagrees and listen to them.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3649
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2014, 05:54:40 PM »
You're 27 and focusing on dividends?  Tells me you don't understand the role of dividends, or that total return trumps dividends.

Dodge, question about this statement... and maybe I'm mis-understanding the reasoning. What does a young age have to do with focusing or let's say tilting toward dividends? I can see that dividends are best for income generation but even over the long term aren't they beneficial for growth? For instance, a portfolio that reinvests all dividends and has 40% toward VTI and 20% toward VYM. Both return almost the same dividend, but VYM is about $30 cheaper, the dividends would buy more shares over the long term, VYM diversified by good dividend returning companies and VTI...


This article might help you understand it a little better:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billharris/2012/09/26/your-retirement-dividends-or-capital-gains/

It's not too long, but here's the money quote if you need a TL/DR:
Quote
So what do we know? Many investors prefer higher yielding securities so they can “live off the interest.” But this is primarily a psychological bias rooted in arbitrary mental accounting practices. In reality, capital gains provide the exact same economic benefit as dividends and interest income. High yield securities are not inherently better, so investors should make sure their exposure is part of a larger diversified portfolio.
"Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe."  -- Einstein

surfhb

  • Guest
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2014, 07:02:17 PM »
2 funds are just fine.. ...Total Stock and Total bond index funds

You're also paying big fees with those managed funds as well

KISS !   I'd sell your entire list of positions and park in those 2 vanguard funds forever.   Read the boglehead wiki  and read the books on there and come back and try to argue why passive investing is not a smart approach
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 07:06:31 PM by surfhb »

Druid

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Age: 35
  • Location: California
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2014, 02:34:17 AM »
I actually think that the next bubble will have to do with the healthcare industry...good luck!

Druid

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Age: 35
  • Location: California
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2014, 02:46:33 AM »
I am not a bogle head yet so this is what I got(age 32 with no retirement in sight):

Emerging Markets Stock Index Admiral Shares (15 percent)

European Stock Index Admiral Shares (15 percent)

Small-Cap Index Admiral Shares (15 percent)

Mid-Cap Value Index Admiral (15 percent)

500 Index Admiral Shares(30 percent)

Intermediate-Term Bond Index Admiral Shares (10 percent). On the fence with my bond choice. I also am having trouble with the concept behind holding 30% of portfolio in bonds.

Note: I know that this portfolio can be accomplished with less fund choices but I find this a little more exciting!
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 02:54:32 AM by Druid »

skyrefuge

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 999
  • Location: Suburban Chicago, IL
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2014, 09:21:13 AM »
Emerging Markets Stock Index Admiral Shares (15 percent)
European Stock Index Admiral Shares (15 percent)
Small-Cap Index Admiral Shares (15 percent)
Mid-Cap Value Index Admiral (15 percent)
500 Index Admiral Shares(30 percent)
Intermediate-Term Bond Index Admiral Shares (10 percent). On the fence with my bond choice. I also am having trouble with the concept behind holding 30% of portfolio in bonds.

Thanks for the nice counter-example. If you decide that you want to hold a lot of different funds in order to achieve your own personal and specific mix, this is how you do it. There is no overlap between your funds, and no internal contradictions in your philosophy.

(That said, this mix probably isn't too far off from what you'd get in the Target Retirement 2060 fund.)

NP

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2014, 09:40:50 AM »
Emerging Markets Stock Index Admiral Shares (15 percent)

European Stock Index Admiral Shares (15 percent)

Small-Cap Index Admiral Shares (15 percent)

Mid-Cap Value Index Admiral (15 percent)

500 Index Admiral Shares(30 percent)
It looks like a reasonable portfolio with two small oddities:
1. Tilting mid cap towards value but at the same time not tilting small cap is an unusual choice because according to most sources the value advantage is most likely to be realized with small cap stocks. If you believe in value tilting, you may want to consider replacing VSMAX with VSIAX, at least for future contributions.
2. You have a sizable exposure to European developed markets but very little to Asia/Pacific developed markets. Any particular reason for that? You may want to consider replacing VEUSX with VTMGX, or you could split your non-US developed markets allocation between VEUSX and VPADX. You could do the latter without selling anything, just direct future contributions to VPADX.

I also noticed that you've increased your allocation to US small cap stocks relative to a market capitalization based total stock index. Opinions differ on whether that's a good idea (I think it is), but if you do it with US stocks, I wonder why not with international? You could add some VFSVX to increase the proportion of international small cap stocks.

Intermediate-Term Bond Index Admiral Shares (10 percent). On the fence with my bond choice. I also am having trouble with the concept behind holding 30% of portfolio in bonds.
I don't think you necessarily need 30% bonds if you have a long time horizon and sufficient emergency reserves and the nerves to stay the course during a market crash. For example, Vanguard actually recommends a 90% stock portfolio to people very far away from retirement.

Note: I know that this portfolio can be accomplished with less fund choices but I find this a little more exciting!
The question is whether the tilts in your portfolio are largely accidental or deliberate and you know what you're doing. The mentioned target retirement fund comes relatively close but you couldn't get those tilts with fewer funds.

Druid

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Age: 35
  • Location: California
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2014, 11:35:33 AM »
Thanks NP!

I am still a beginner, so I am heavily influenced by the last thing I read:) I decided that I wanted about 30% international and 60% domestic and 10% bonds. I also wanted low expense ratios. Originally I was looking at "Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares" for my domestic needs, but decided I wanted more control of my domestic risk.

1. I copied my mid-cap wrong and actually hold "Mid-Cap Index Admiral Shares"(VIMAX). I think I am leaning towards going 20% small-cap and then 10% mid-cap while I am young. Since the last book I read is "A Random Walk Down Wall Street", and as a result am influenced by it, I was trying to avoid any funds that are trying to accomplish to pick portfolios based on "growth" or "value" and instead choose the general index funds. I am very curious about the "value for small" concept and will need to expand my knowledge on this issue. Based on my current knowledge, really influence, I do not currently believe in value investing. Conceptually it is easier for me to get behind "growth" stocks since it is easier to analyze whether a company "intends" to hold on to their money with the intention to grow, since this information is out there in the board minutes, company mission statements, and based on CEO's comments.

2. Picking my international funds is where my current biases came in. While my overall portfolio is not asian pacific heavy I am invested in China and India through "Emerging Markets Stock Index Admiral Shares". I would of invested in "Pacific Stock Index Admiral Shares" and held 3 international funds at 10%, if the general VPADX marketing gave more information about the countries its invested in. They have the following statement in the VPADX:

"invests solely in stocks of countries located in the Pacific region, particularly Japan"

The VPADX doesn't sound as diverse as I would like, but I may add it to my portfolio if I ever delve in to these funds in more detail. Generally I am concerned with scandals and accounting practices of the non Japan pacific region smaller countries, and on the flip side don't want to much investment in Japan. The two international funds I choose seem to be more diversified than VPADX as far as the number of economies I would be dealing with. Of course I do recognize that some people might consider the European union one economy.

3. I think one reason I didn't look at VFSVX is due to the expense ratio, but another reason is I am mainly investing out of the country for diversification. Being a beginner, I feel more comfortable adjusting my risk domestically than internationally. For example I might go 20% small-cap/10% mid-cap domestically if I want more risk. Investing small-cap internationally sounds rewarding, but to risky for me at this point.

4. My tilts are somewhat deliberate. The main reason I have this portfolio is that it allows me to know where my money is more so than dropping all my money into the target retirement funds or a VTSAX/VTIAX combo. I also want the opportunity to tilt things deliberately as I become more knowledgeable and as my job income changes. I am diversified similar to the VTSAX/VTIAX combo, but I also feel like I am using intelligence in my choices(which is more fun). The target retirement funds or VTSAX/VTIAX are great because they keep people from playing around with your portfolio,but they are just not exciting enough for me.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 12:07:11 PM by Druid »

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2751
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2014, 11:50:45 AM »
One note I wanted to point out for those who invest in the "BRICs" because of higher future growth: depending on the study, there's either a negative or no correlation between GDP growth of a country and its stock market performance.  There's a wealth of research on the subject, but here's a starting point:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/02/growth-and-markets

NP

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2014, 03:04:14 PM »
Thanks NP!
...

1. Don't tilt toward value or growth until you've done your homework and made a careful decision. Staying in the middle is a safe default.

2. By excluding developed Asia/Pacific, you exclude not just Japan but also Australia, South Korea, Hong Kong etc. In terms of how many different stocks they hold and how concentrated their biggest holdings are, VEMAX and VPADX are very similar. I'm not sure it's a good idea to avoid those countries but if you strongly feel that way, you might as well because in an already well diversified portfolio like yours it's unlikely to have a big negative effect.

3. There's nothing wrong with not having an international small cap fund. If later on you decide you want it, check out VSS, it's the ETF version of VFSVX with half the expense ratio and it can be traded without fees in a Vanguard brokerage.

4. It appears so far you have been able to avoid playing with your portfolio in silly ways, so I see no need to stick with the simplest possible allocation in your case. Some food for thought though if you like to think about choices: Almost exactly the same asset allocation could be achieved if you had 37% VTSAX, 14% VIMAX and 9% VSMAX but at a very slightly lower cost, and you'd still have the freedom to adjust the proportions of large/mid/small cap if you like.

Druid

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Age: 35
  • Location: California
Re: Mutual Funds - Approach
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2014, 03:52:12 PM »
As my portfolio grows in assets I will definitely have to learn more about the foreign part of my portfolio or invest in something like VTIAX. I think I am mainly invested in the "Emerging Markets Stock Index Admiral Shares" because it has such large economies and it makes me feel more diversified. I am also guilty of thinking that India and China will have good returns as a result of their growth, so I really appreciate the link.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2014, 03:55:16 PM by Druid »