|
SpelledBackwards posted:Thanks for that--I hadn't thought to look. Unfortunately, it looks like HR has nothing on their internal site as far as legal docs go (just W-4 updates, beneficiary updates, things like that). Those items entirely managed by the Group Legal firm they've hired out, which only gives you anything if you have a valid/unexpired login and whatnot. Your local public library likely has a collection of legal aid books that would get you started down this road as well
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
SpelledBackwards posted:Does anyone have any links to some good form/"standard" wills and living wills? Kind of like basic rental agreements you can download and say "good enough" to after a read-through? I have my beneficiaries all designated in my retirement accounts and for insurance (brother primary, parents secondary), and I've discussed my wishes with my family to not be artificially kept alive, to be cremated at death, and to serve as an organ donor if possible (all things that we all want for ourselves, actually). But to have it all in writing and notarized so I can give my family copies would give me some peace of mind. legalzoom.com?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
401k contribution question: I've been keeping my money in a Lifecycle 2050 fund and not really worrying about it. It's 3-year performance (which is about the time I've had it) it's averaged a 14% gain. It's pretty good, but there are some indexed and actively managed funds that have fantastic performance over the same period. The large companies and S&P 500 funds have gotten 20%, and the science and tech fund has gotten 24%. I've decided to readjust that going forward, to put 20% into the Lifecycle 2050 fund, 30% into S&P 500, 20% into Large Companies, and 30% into science & tech. Good idea / bad idea? The The other thought I had was to reallocate current money from my Lifecycle fund into the others, so that I start earning better interest on those accounts. Not sure what's the best option here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:401k contribution question: I've been keeping my money in a Lifecycle 2050 fund and not really worrying about it. It's 3-year performance (which is about the time I've had it) it's averaged a 14% gain. It's pretty good, but there are some indexed and actively managed funds that have fantastic performance over the same period. The large companies and S&P 500 funds have gotten 20%, and the science and tech fund has gotten 24%. I've decided to readjust that going forward, to put 20% into the Lifecycle 2050 fund, 30% into S&P 500, 20% into Large Companies, and 30% into science & tech. Good idea / bad idea? The The other thought I had was to reallocate current money from my Lifecycle fund into the others, so that I start earning better interest on those accounts. Not sure what's the best option here. Why do you think the Lifecycle 2050 fund has lagged behind the other things you are looking at?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:401k contribution question: I've been keeping my money in a Lifecycle 2050 fund and not really worrying about it. It's 3-year performance (which is about the time I've had it) it's averaged a 14% gain. It's pretty good, but there are some indexed and actively managed funds that have fantastic performance over the same period. The large companies and S&P 500 funds have gotten 20%, and the science and tech fund has gotten 24%. I've decided to readjust that going forward, to put 20% into the Lifecycle 2050 fund, 30% into S&P 500, 20% into Large Companies, and 30% into science & tech. Good idea / bad idea? The The other thought I had was to reallocate current money from my Lifecycle fund into the others, so that I start earning better interest on those accounts. Not sure what's the best option here. First: You are paying attention to returns, but (I think) not paying attention to risk. Risk is a critical component to any investing decision, and the key reason that passively-managed index funds are recommended here (they perform well given their low risk profile). Second: You are paying attention to past performance, which is not necessarily indicitave of future performance. It's entirely possible, for example, that three years ago science and technology equities were discounted, and that their overperformance (compared to your lifecycle funds) was them "catching up," and now they're too expensive. Which brings me to Third: You may be attempting to time the market. By deciding to invest now in something that is "up" comparatively, you're effectively making a decision that you think these specific areas will outperform in the near future? Even worse, you seem to be "buying high," just on the basis of your own analysis. People who actively buy and sell investments should seek discounts when buying, and try to sell things when they are peaking. Please read up about, and make sure you understand, the key principles behind passive low-fee index mutual fund investing: risk management and avoiding attempting to time the market, as well as avoiding fees. We can discuss these ideas further if you have questions. e. Oh, one more correction. You may already understand this and have just misspoken, but: your lifecycle funds, S&P 500 funds, and equity funds do not earn much in the way of "interest" - their gains in Net Asset Value come from increases in the market price of the underlying securities, and/or reinvestment of dividends. Cash investments and bonds can be said to earn interest, so you do get a bit (although a lifecycle 2050 fund will not be holding a whole lot of bonds), but it's worth understanding the distinction. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:401k contribution question: I've been keeping my money in a Lifecycle 2050 fund and not really worrying about it. It's 3-year performance (which is about the time I've had it) it's averaged a 14% gain. It's pretty good, but there are some indexed and actively managed funds that have fantastic performance over the same period. The large companies and S&P 500 funds have gotten 20%, and the science and tech fund has gotten 24%. I've decided to readjust that going forward, to put 20% into the Lifecycle 2050 fund, 30% into S&P 500, 20% into Large Companies, and 30% into science & tech. Good idea / bad idea? The The other thought I had was to reallocate current money from my Lifecycle fund into the others, so that I start earning better interest on those accounts. Not sure what's the best option here. Your Lifecycle 2050 fund almost certainly includes some bond allocation, which would depress your returns below what a straight S&P fund would have returned over the past 3 years of the market's excellent performance. If your investing is predicated on a multi-decade time horizon, you may well want to manually reallocate between bonds and stocks, and even tilt more heavily towards the latter. Please avoid sector funds like Science & Technology, at least as a core holding. Also (unrelated): thanks for the Sheep Game software. Everyone in BYOB got a kick out of it, and I'm probably going to bring it here to BFC some time in the next few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:401k contribution question: I've been keeping my money in a Lifecycle 2050 fund and not really worrying about it. It's 3-year performance (which is about the time I've had it) it's averaged a 14% gain. It's pretty good, but there are some indexed and actively managed funds that have fantastic performance over the same period. The large companies and S&P 500 funds have gotten 20%, and the science and tech fund has gotten 24%. I've decided to readjust that going forward, to put 20% into the Lifecycle 2050 fund, 30% into S&P 500, 20% into Large Companies, and 30% into science & tech. Good idea / bad idea? The The other thought I had was to reallocate current money from my Lifecycle fund into the others, so that I start earning better interest on those accounts. Not sure what's the best option here. When I gamble I prefer craps, not the stock market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Droo posted:Why do you think the Lifecycle 2050 fund has lagged behind the other things you are looking at? I know Lifecycle funds are diversified to minimize risk, though earlier funds (i.e. the 2050 and 2055) are going to be tilted more toward riskier investments (stocks and whatnot), with only about 10% in bonds. Leperflesh posted:First: You are paying attention to returns, but (I think) not paying attention to risk. Risk is a critical component to any investing decision, and the key reason that passively-managed index funds are recommended here (they perform well given their low risk profile). This is great advice. Thanks. For the part I bolded - do you have reading material that is worth reading? So far, my funds are still mainly allocated toward the Lifecycle fund. The only real investment advice I've gotten has been from my dad, which has been "you're relatively young, take investment risks, since it's not going to hurt you as much as it would me." I do realize the market has performed well for awhile (my company stock has risen significantly over this time, and finally tapered off). I imagine the market will begin to slow at some point, which upon thinking about it, is probably a bad time to begin investment in risky funds. pig slut lisa posted:Your Lifecycle 2050 fund almost certainly includes some bond allocation, which would depress your returns below what a straight S&P fund would have returned over the past 3 years of the market's excellent performance. If your investing is predicated on a multi-decade time horizon, you may well want to manually reallocate between bonds and stocks, and even tilt more heavily towards the latter. So far I'm 27, almost 28 and had about a 14% increase, I just see the other gains and think "man I could have done better" which is probably a bad thought process. I'll minimize my science & tech contributions. Sheep games are fun as heck. I need to do more of them 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:So far I'm 27, almost 28 and had about a 14% increase, I just see the other gains and think "man I could have done better" which is probably a bad thought process. Your thought process should be: I wonder why the performance was worse than I expected? Oh, it looks like my lifecycle fund has about 12% in cash, bonds, and other. And it also has about 29% in foreign stocks which have significantly underperformed US stocks. Well that explains the difference, and I guess it's not really fair to compare this balanced fund to an S&P fund at all, because they aren't even close to the same thing - so I guess I should rethink my overall portfolio and decide if I am happy with a fund that is globally balanced in equities with a mix of bonds and cash in the mix. If not, then maybe I should come up with a portfolio composition that I am more comfortable with and figure out an efficient way to create it with my investment capital.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:401k contribution question: I've been keeping my money in a Lifecycle 2050 fund and not really worrying about it. It's 3-year performance (which is about the time I've had it) it's averaged a 14% gain. It's pretty good, but there are some indexed and actively managed funds that have fantastic performance over the same period. The large companies and S&P 500 funds have gotten 20%, and the science and tech fund has gotten 24%. I've decided to readjust that going forward, to put 20% into the Lifecycle 2050 fund, 30% into S&P 500, 20% into Large Companies, and 30% into science & tech. Good idea / bad idea? The The other thought I had was to reallocate current money from my Lifecycle fund into the others, so that I start earning better interest on those accounts. Not sure what's the best option here. Bad idea. The three-year returns are completely irrelevant when you're making long term investments. Read a book or two from the OP. The target retirement fund is a good holding pattern until you've done that, and in fact is the living embodiment of the principle of taking risks while you're young. Your proposed new portfolio is a random conglomeration of pick-of-the-week with no rationale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:Bad idea. The three-year returns are completely irrelevant when you're making long term investments. Read a book or two from the OP. The target retirement fund is a good holding pattern until you've done that, and in fact is the living embodiment of the principle of taking risks while you're young. Your proposed new portfolio is a random conglomeration of pick-of-the-week with no rationale. Can we update the OP to include the Stock Series at jlcollinsnh? I feel like telling people "read a whole book" is not always the best way to start them off when they come in with basic questions. Parts I-VI of the Stock Series are especially good for someone who's just beginning their exploration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Done!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Seriously. The first 100 pages of Four Pillars covers things like the Venetian prestiti and how bond yields are calculated. If you want to know why and how you should invest, the stock series at JLCollins or even Bernstein's own (author of Four Pillars) short eBook "If You Can": https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct....84349003,d.cGU If You Can is a great primer. It's written specifically for young investors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:Done! Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:...or even Bernstein's own (author of Four Pillars) short eBook "If You Can": http://www.etf.com/docs/IfYouCan.pdf If You Can is a great primer. It's written specifically for young investors. Got this too. Thanks y'all
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:So far, my funds are still mainly allocated toward the Lifecycle fund. The only real investment advice I've gotten has been from my dad, which has been "you're relatively young, take investment risks, since it's not going to hurt you as much as it would me." I do realize the market has performed well for awhile (my company stock has risen significantly over this time, and finally tapered off). I imagine the market will begin to slow at some point, which upon thinking about it, is probably a bad time to begin investment in risky funds. See, this is attempting to time the market; you have some feeling or guess about what the market is going to do, and you want to act on that. The trouble is, even highly-trained knowledgable experts with decades of experience are scarecely better than monkeys throwing darts at dartboards, when it comes to attempting to time the market; many are much, much worse. You, as a random schlub without those decades of experience, haven't got a prayer. So when you attempt to time the market, you're just as likely to lose as to win (by which I mean, underperform rather than outperform a low-cost passively-managed index-based mutual fund portfolio). If you want to gamble on the stock market, you can totally do that. The best advice is to do it with money that isn't part of your retirement plans. Your dad is right: as a young person, you can afford to take more risk than older people closer to retirement. The target retirement funds have already taken that into account, by going with a minimum of bonds and a heavy percentage into the much more risky stock markets. But the low fees and diversification inherent in these funds lower the risk while still providing you with the advantage of the good performance stocks have had historically. Taking on additional risk is possible, but you don't just randomly take on risk without having a solid market thesis for exactly how that risk will be likely to translate into greater reward. It's akin to stepping out into moving traffic, on the basis that doing so gets you across the street faster than waiting for the light. You'd better look both ways first, and the reward for crossing the street a bit faster had better be sufficient to compensate for the additional risk you're taking, or else you're just being really foolish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
So I've got a problem that'll be coming up in one or two years... I always rebalance on tax day. I've got the basic target I aim for, x% stocks, y% bonds, a certain percent of those stocks in international and the rest in US stock. Problem is my 401k only has two funds that I feel like are worth a drat: FSEVX (Spartan mid-cap extended market, ER 0.07%) and FUSVX (Spartan 500 index, ER 0.07). The only normal international index available to me is FDIVX (diversified international, ER 0.91%); there's also an emerging markets fund that I won't be touching with a ten foot pole. Right now rebalancing isn't an issue, because I've got a lot of money in a rollover IRA from my last job's 401k, so I'm rocking Vanguards Admiral international fund. But pretty soon (next year or two) I won't have enough money in my IRA vs my 401k to get the allocation I want by using the IRA in international funds. So my choices will be: 1) Just make my IRA all international, all the time, and let that be a hard maximum international. Keep using the two domestic Spartan funds in my 401k. 2) Go international in my IRA until I can't hit my target allocation that way, then start contributing to the 0.91% international fund in my 401k and be sad about it. So I guess the real question is, at what point does it make sense for me to sacrifice friendly expense ratio and prioritize my allocation? Any suggestions on how I act here? I mean the math is simple: if I put $10,000 in the 500 fund, $7 disappears in fees a year. If I put that much in the international fund $91 bucks disappear. I know I'm doing it to diversify, and an $80 dollar difference/$10,000 isn't that big of a deal for a one year thing, but I'm leaning towards the SP 500 being pretty internationally diversified anyway. And option 3 is request a Spartan international index fund in my 401k, but I've already tried that and I'm waiting but have no expectations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Is you plan administrator Fidelity? If so check if you have something called Brokeragelink. What other funds do you have in the plan?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
It is Fidelity, yes. I don't think I have the ability to use BrokerageLink. It would show up as if it was a separate fund option, right? I've also looked into an in-service roll over. Looks like that's a no go (no surprise). Symbol (Description) ER FBGRX (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth) 0.80 FEIKX (Fidelity Equity Income Fund Class K) 0.54 FUSVX (Spartan 500 Index Advantage Class) 0.07 FSEVX (Spartan Extended Market Index advantage Class) 0.07 MGOYX (Victory Munder Mid-Cap Core Growth Fund Class Y) 1.16 FDSCX (Fidelity® Stock Selector Small Cap Fund) 0.73 FDIVX (Fidelity® Diversified International Fund) 0.91 EIEMX (Parametric Emerging Markets Fund Institutional Class) 1.13 Company Stock Handful of freedom K retirement funds DBIRX (Dreyfus Bond Market Index Fund Basic Class) 0.16 It was pretty easy to just chase the two Spartan funds when this was such a small chunk of my portfolio. Even then extended market wasn't something I would've gone out of my way to put money into, but like I said, I didn't have a lot invested in it. Now it's grown a lot and it's time to make decisions...
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Brian Fellows posted:So I've got a problem that'll be coming up in one or two years... I'm planning on rebalancing in February like I always do. What I really want to do is compare my current portfolio to the whole market and "look for" high R-squared and beta = 1. I don't think it will really inform any of my decisions but I am a nerd and want to do it just because. However, I can't find any sources of data on individual funds that wouldn't be a lot of copying in to Excel by hand. I think I know the answer to this question already, but does anyone have a source for that data?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Brian Fellows posted:It is Fidelity, yes. I don't think I have the ability to use BrokerageLink. It would show up as if it was a separate fund option, right? I've also looked into an in-service roll over. Looks like that's a no go (no surprise). If you have it would be under change investments:  To avoid high ER there's not much option besides nagging to HR for more funds and for now just using your non-taxable accounts for international stocks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for the advice. I'll hold on to my lifecycle fund and then start reading a book in the OP before making any rash decisions. Overall I probably should be pretty happy with a 14% return thus far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:Seriously. The first 100 pages of Four Pillars covers things like the Venetian prestiti and how bond yields are calculated. This is real solid and I'm going to pass it on to a few people I know. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:Seriously. The first 100 pages of Four Pillars covers things like the Venetian prestiti and how bond yields are calculated. I hate to just echo but this is fantastic. I especially like the part near the beginning comparing saving to dieting, because I've made the same comparison to friends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:This is real solid and I'm going to pass it on to a few people I know. Thanks. It's basically a short and sweet introduction to things such as retirement saving and low cost index investing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
I have a question that is probably pretty stupid but here goes. Many of the 'lazy investing' approaches advocate putting at least some portion of your savings into a broad non-US market index such as VEU. My question is if it is true that approximately 40% of the US industry earnings come from non-us markets then wouldn't buying additional non-US funds be weighting you too heavily to foreign markets?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I have a question that is probably pretty stupid but here goes. What makes you think that there aren't a lot of foreign companies that make a substantial amount of their profits in the US ? Anyway I would recommend reading this: https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/icriecr.pdf On the third page, it even directly addresses your question about large multinational US companies with significant earnings from outside the US. In short, it says that even those companies which have a majority of their revenue from outside the US still have a stock price that is more highly correlated with the US than with international equities. Their conclusion is that a fully proportioned market cap strategy is probably unnecessary, given that the optimal proportion for reduction of volatility was somewhere around 20% international / 80% domestic, and that allocations beyond 40% international did not add significant diversification benefit. So somewhere between 20-40% is what they recommend. The paper is about 4-5 years old now, so I'm not sure if their perspective has changed at all from that time. I do know that around the time they released this paper, they also changed the Target Retirement funds to a slightly higher international allocation (from ~20% to ~30%).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Speaking of diversification, If someone is just starting to save - and avoiding fees is the name of the game - and they were starting to open accounts with Vanguard should they: Try and avoid the $20/yr per fund under $10k fee like the plague by: Opening an account at the minimum $3k and build it until it gets to $20k then transfer $10k into another fund. Each subsequent purchase into a new fund would be with 10k from any of the other funds, thus bypassing the $20/yr per fund under $10k fee. Or say the $20/yr per fund under $10k is acceptable and: Open an account with the minimum $3k and then work towards purchasing into a second fund when total assets reach $6k making the split $3k and $3k each. Continue purchasing into new funds at the minimum until you have all proper diversification. Then and only then do you continue to build at your preferred allocations accepting that you may pay $60 to $100 per year as you build these 3-5 or whatever accounts past the $10k mark each.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
I think if you go to electronic delivery of statements they waive the fee anyways. The real reason to get over 10k in each fund is to utilize the admiral classification which carries a lower expense ratio.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
They should sign up for electronic document delivery so as not to pay that fee regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Also, don't sacrifice your portfolio diversity just to get Admiral shares. The difference between Investor and Admiral shares is a matter of dollars per $10,000. The proper allocation should be giving you a bigger benefit than a few bucks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
SweetSassyMolassy posted:Speaking of diversification, If someone is just starting to save - and avoiding fees is the name of the game - and they were starting to open accounts with Vanguard should they: Or you can sign up for the e-delivery package to eliminate the $20 fee. edit: Wow I am beaten.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
That was a simple answer to what now appears to be a needlessly complicated question. So umm... what kinds of fees would one typically be looking at to switch money from one Roth IRA to another from two different fund companies? It seems that I got excited about starting investing before reading any of the books in the OP and now that I've read Four Pillars and Winning The Loser's Game, things seem to make more sense. At least I managed to get into funds without any loads...
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Fidelity costs a flat $70 to do a transfer, as does Sharebuilder (Now Capital One something something). I would assume most companies have similar fees.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
SweetSassyMolassy posted:That was a simple answer to what now appears to be a needlessly complicated question. Fund loads is basically the other clever way Wall Street separates people from their investment money in addition to ripoff expense ratio funds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Can you somehow withhold taxes from your taxable investment account? I've got money in a Vanguard taxable account, and the money I made this year from dividends and interest on my savings account drat near whittled my return down to nothing. So next year, I either pay quarterly estimated taxes (I have no idea how to make a best guess), or I owe money on April 15 and draw the ire of the IRS. I'd love if I could just automatically withhold something from my dividends so I don't get burned on not paying enough throughout the year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Increase your withholding at work (new W-4 with fewer exemptions) or pay estimated tax. IRS has a calculator for the 1040-ES.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Brian Fellows posted:Can you somehow withhold taxes from your taxable investment account? I've got money in a Vanguard taxable account, and the money I made this year from dividends and interest on my savings account drat near whittled my return down to nothing. Assuming you're a normal W-4 employee, just adjust your W-4 witholdings using the text box that lets you pay as much extra as you specify. You do have to think ahead though. Vanguard has no idea how much to withhold though because how are they supposed to know how much else you make?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Brian Fellows posted:Can you somehow withhold taxes from your taxable investment account? I've got money in a Vanguard taxable account, and the money I made this year from dividends and interest on my savings account drat near whittled my return down to nothing. Qualified Dividends actually get fairly large tax savings from uncle sam. non muni-bond interest or REIT dividends on the other hand are much smaller after tax since they get the higher ordinary income rate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
I just changed jobs and am looking for some basic advice. My retirement savings are in a 401k and Roth IRA at about a 2:1 ratio. My new employer (state gov't) has a defined benefit pension plan with a mandatory 9% employee contribution. My understanding is that on top of that 9% my first priority should be to max out my Roth. I'd like to move my 401k and Roth to Vanguard. I assume that they'll advise me on my best course of action, but I'd like to have an idea of what that is. Should I be rolling anything over, or simply transferring my accounts? I don't plan to continue contributing to the 401k because I don't feel that I need additional retirement savings beyond what I listed above. Potentially relevant details: Married in our mid 30s and the wife is in the same pension plan, but since she already has 13 years of service she's my ace in the hole. She has a Roth that we're maxing out as well. We're both healthy with no kids, and our parents are extremely stable financially thanks to their pensions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:10
|
|
