Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Standard sector stocks (Vanguard/Fidelity) and expense ratios
Old 01-12-2019, 05:10 AM   #1
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 14
Standard sector stocks (Vanguard/Fidelity) and expense ratios

The following article is from 2014, but it hit on a topic that I had been wondering about for awhile: Expense Ratios don't really tell the whole story, which I assume is still the case even now in 2019.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/276...s-maybe?page=8


So how do you folks think, ignore Expense Ratios?




My real reason for asking is: My wife and I have a combination of the sector specific Vanguard and Fidelity funds:

(all 0.1 ER)
VHT
VPU
VGT
VWO

(all 0.084)
FDIS
FHLC
FUTY
FIDU
FTEC



My question is: should the "low" Expense Ratio of these sector ETFs be part of their appeal? I admit to basically ignoring anything with an ER over 1% (except for dividend yield or REIT funds).

Any suggested better alternatives to these?
__________________

voidstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-12-2019, 09:22 AM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 2,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
... So how do you folks think, ignore Expense Ratios? ...
Ack! No!

"The expense ratio is the most proven predictor of future fund returns. We find that it is a dependable predictor when we run the data. That's also what academics, fund companies, and, of course, Jack Bogle, find when they run the data." -- Morningstar (https://www.morningstar.com/articles...r-failure.html)

This is old news, really. The linked article says " ... we have updated the data to show just how strong and dependable fees are as a predictor of future success."

Slightly OT: Why all those funds? You can test the portfolio against one (or two, if international) total market funds at https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/. See whether you're likely to be getting anything for all that hassle. I'd be surprised if you are.
__________________

OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 09:37 AM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 20,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
...

So how do you folks think, ignore Expense Ratios? ...
NO!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
... Any suggested better alternatives to these?
YES!!!

What is the point of all these sector funds? Just buy the market, those typically have the lowest ERs.

That article makes no sense at all. How the heck can they base expenses on returns? Returns are unknown, expenses pretty much are.


Do us a favor. Enter those funds/ETFs here:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/...location2_3=30

Then link to it (hit the link button, then copy the link in the address bar) and show us how you are doing. You might have got lucky with certain sectors, but I suspect it will average out.


-ERD50
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 10:53 AM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
target2019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
The following article is from 2014, but it hit on a topic that I had been wondering about for awhile: Expense Ratios don't really tell the whole story, which I assume is still the case even now in 2019.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/276...s-maybe?page=8

So how do you folks think, ignore Expense Ratios?
You don't ignore expenses. But you do look at expenses and total return over a longer period of time.

Expense ratios aren't the entire story, but they are a few chapters?
target2019 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 02:01 PM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 2,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by target2019 View Post
... Expense ratios aren't the entire story, but they are a few chapters?
Nope. They are the whole story. The only predictive data that there is.

Prior performance has been repeatedly examined statistically, over many years, and has been shown to have zero (zero) predictive value.
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 04:51 AM   #6
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldShooter View Post
The linked article says " ... we have updated the data to show just how strong and dependable fees are as a predictor of future success."

What page was that on? My apologies, my original link started on page 8 instead of the first page. I glossed back through and didn't see any update mentioned.
voidstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 06:50 AM   #7
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
NO!!!
Do us a favor. Enter those funds/ETFs here:
-ERD50

Thanks for the link, I really like these kinds of tools.

However, I wasn't really trying to debate the merits of Broad Market vs Sector Selections. Intuitively, yes, it should be a wash. I was looking more on opinions on the Expense Ratio metric itself as still being valid (assuming the way it is computed is consistent, and I think the original linked article challenges that to some extent; of whether it really is a consistent metric in terms of how it is computed).


Also, my context isn't a full portfolio. Obviously this forum is all themed on the path to retirement, and I always appreciate the wisdom of folks who have happily made it there. But I meant my question more from smaller percentages of a portfolio: should one nit pick between an ER of (examples) 0.75 versus 2.1 (i.e. anything under 3.0 -- I'm not personally familiar with funds with expense ratios above 5.0 or even 20.0, I've only heard rumors they exist; but if they exist, then someone must be interested in them -- the Parents of certain Fund Managers, perhaps? In any case, maybe it is a selection not suitable in a retirement account? Or is there a circumstance where some outrageous expense ratio fund should be considered?).


Or asked another way: If I had a general rule of avoiding ANY ETF/mutual fund with an expense ratio above (say) 0.7, might I be losing opportunity? Then sure, any question on retirement investment needs context (just starting out, or about near time to take distributions).


That said, here is a proposed cut at the requested link. I considered VTI as among one of the broadest indexes available. And my intent was to model someone just starting to save up in a 401K with basically nothing, but doing monthly contributions at roughly 10% of roughly a low six-figure income (the picks I made, I think end up making this only go back a few years; I couldn't even go to the year 2000).

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/...ation11_3=12.5


My take is: while those specific selections were somewhat lucky -- the difference is (in my opinion) very marginal, as expected.





As a separate but related question/discusion: What are thoughts on a "cascade" style portfolio? Not to be applied when starting out with near 0 balance (or even under $20k). Suppose you have successfully achieved a growth across a career, and now could distribute across say $1,000,000 .

By "cascade", I mean the following: the bulk allocation is in a broad index (say at least 40% something like VTI, with the very low expense ratio).

From there you then have two tiers of selections: the middle tier is a combination of sector funds (indexed), and a lower tier of individual smaller picks (perhaps even individual stocks).


My particular picks don't have enough years to really make backtesting viable. And I don't have enough experience to say what a similar approach back in the 1980s would look like. Still, including a 10% capture of bonds and emerging market each, my proposed portfolio would be more along the lines of #2 in the following:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/...location24_2=1


That's the general gist of this "cascade" approach: broad sections in the order of 10% selections with the lowest expense ratio, followed by sector selections in the order of 3-4% with not-as-low expense ratios, then the rest more tailored selections in the 1-2% order. It's in these smaller category where I am wondering of Expense Ratios really matter.


I am by no means a financial person, and I've never retired before. So none of this is to be taken as any kind of advise. But thoughts are:

There is a window of time (say 5-10 years) between where one has accumulated holdings, but it still isn't rolled over into a Traditional IRA yet. So if the funds are still maintained in 401K accounts, there may be limited selections available for awhile. In my case, between my spouse and I, it is all split across our different plans (where the Roth's do give us some more flexibility).


So the thinking is: the broad-market index is the "ol'e reliable", then reinforced with the sector specific funds that may have more leeway to dig into smaller caps. [ I used etfrc.com to examine the overlap of say VTI and these sector picks, they are all under 20% overlap; which is interesting to me, since it somewhat suggest there is a large portion you're not being exposed to if just using VTI ]

Then the even smaller picks (below the sector funds) -- this is not quite just being "play money", but may try to capture more fresh contemporary interests (3D printing and AI for instance, certain Energy or Biotech startups, etc.).


Or another way of thinking of it might be: diversifying whole strategies.


To me, just using a single or few total market indexes -- that works while dollar cost averaging into it. But once that slows down (such as by no longer having an income), you don't know if that strategy is going to continue to work. So mix it up... Then re-assess when it does come time to roll over to the IRA and begin distributions.
voidstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 07:34 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
target2019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,452
Voidstar, I admire your clever theorizing. We use broad market indices for 85-90%, and have a taxable brokerage 10-15% for a sector/individual approach.
I will read your approach again. If it fits on an index card, I can "get it".
target2019 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 09:18 AM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 20,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
Thanks for the link, I really like these kinds of tools.

However, I wasn't really trying to debate the merits of Broad Market vs Sector Selections. Intuitively, yes, it should be a wash. ...
You are answering your own question. If it is a wash, then the difference is expense ratios.

We don't know of any reliable way to pick sectors or individual stocks that will reliably beat the market. It's not for lack of trying, most of us really like money, and more is better.

Some will claim to routinely beat the market. Who knows if it is true and/or properly measured (google Beardstown Ladies), or if true, is it luck, or is it real skill? If it is real skill, can it reliably be duplicated? If not, it does us no good.

So lacking that, broad market indexes will serve you well, and since those are passive, they also have the lowest expense ratios. Your search is over!

It's one of those rare cases where lazy, simple, and cheap is better. Don't fight it, take the win!

-ERD50
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 09:19 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
target2019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,452
Voidstar, I simplified the choices, and used mutual funds to go back further with the analysis. It's true that starting in 2004, tilting to certain sectors outperforms the Total Stock Market as well as S&P500 index.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/...location6_2=15

Whether this is true for the future will be something for others to try...
target2019 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 09:48 AM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 2,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
What page was that on? My apologies, my original link started on page 8 instead of the first page. I glossed back through and didn't see any update mentioned.
Gee, I don't know. The link works for me. The quotation is in the second paragraph of the piece. Maybe try right-clicking the link, copying the url, and pasting it into your browser?

It feels like you want to deny the reality that low cost funds are, statistically, winners. I remember something from pilot training: "You'd better learn from the mistakes of others, because you're not going to live long enough to make them all yourself." Here is another take (7 minutes) on picking winning managers: https://famafrench.dimensional.com/v...-managers.aspx French doesn't deal specifically with low cost funds, but rather more generally with the truth that it is impossible to identify winners ahead of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
... What are thoughts on a "cascade" style portfolio? ... By "cascade", I mean the following: the bulk allocation is in a broad index (say at least 40% something like VTI, with the very low expense ratio). ... From there you then have two tiers of selections: the middle tier is a combination of sector funds (indexed), and a lower tier of individual smaller picks (perhaps even individual stocks). ...
@voidstar, that is a spectacular idea IF you are able to accurately forecast winning sectors and stocks. But if you have this ability, you would be better off investing 100% of your portfolio in winners and not waste time with passive (aka index) investing.

The sad truth is that none of us know the future, hence we are unable to take Will Rogers' advice: "If if doesn't go up, don't buy it."

My sense is that you are looking here for more "action" than you will get with a passive portfolio. Here's what I have learned since I bought my first stock in 1972: Successful investing is boring. If you're not bored, you're doing it wrong.

But there is a very popular "fix" for boredom: Take 5% of your portfolio, put it in a separate account, and play with it to your heart's content. When it is gone, stop. Or, if you're very lucky and win, you can tell your "investing genius" story far and wide. People do win sometimes, just as they once in a while will flip five heads in a row. (If you are a reader, try "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Taleb)

Say what you like about Warren Buffet, he is good for puthy quotations: "The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient.
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 01:52 PM   #12
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldShooter View Post
Gee, I don't know. The link works for me. The quotation is in the second paragraph of the piece. Maybe try right-clicking the link, copying the url, and pasting it into your browser?
Oh, the link is working fine, I'm just not seeing the "update" you quoted within that specific SeekingAlpha article. I can update the URL manually to go back to Page 1. If in that link they do refute their own article, that would be interesting and I would like to see that -- but I'm still not seeing it, and frankly I think you were mistaken (maybe inadvertently from a different article?). Anyone else?




No, I'm not denying that broad indexes with low fees work -- I've used them, and they've worked for me. But I am proposing that at a certain point, they can be reinforced. Not by willy-nilly speculative picks, but by additional baskets. So far I've only ever added to my baskets, never changed them out entirely to try to chase higher gains.


I'll try to "fit it on an index card":

40% broad/total market (not just S&P 500, but depends on what funds are available by the broker)

30% spread across all or selected sector funds (for the most part, these are exclusively US-only) [cascade or reinforcement approach; "success" may depend on the order and approach these are acquired -- we just picked a different sector every year, and focused on that; this year we did Utilities because that's where overall we were weakest in by weight]

10% bond (maybe ignore if the broad/total market pick includes this already; maybe increase when over 60)

10% emerging market (same comment as above; if "total" includes all world markets or not)

10% "whatever you want" (to me, this is "ETFs of interest" that might cover multiple sectors -- but also might fill in any gaps from the above, such as in small/mid caps, or maybe even just value/dividend like REITs, maybe even long term plays into crypto, bio, CBH, or like right now: buy China while its (possibly) cheap; no you can't predict the market, but you can get a pulse on the up and coming with just a little homework); [ this was the area where I was wondering if Expense Ratio really matters ]







And yes, I know some are screaming that the sector funds are totally redundant. True, that makes this effectively an 80% play on stocks (yes, increasing the bonds to your risk/age tolerance). Also true that the sector specifics will probably have a higher expense ratio. But now we have two backtest models that shows it both beat the market and also had better "worse years". That wasn't a goal, but those two models are showing this. Also, we made 8% last year 2018, so I can't complaint about that for that kind of a year.


Again, what I noticed about those sector funds is they had at most 20% overlap with the broad funds (and often under 10%). So it seems there is a lot of exposure that they offer. So why not just exclusively go with Sector specific picks? IDK -- maybe, but then you're also more exposed to their higher fees. Or as a more practical reason: our allocations are spread across multiple (him/her) accounts with different time horizons (we're different ages). And no, we don't spend a lot of time micromanaging them -- couple times a year (mid-year and across the new year).


I appreciate the analogy of learning how to fly an airplane. Thank you!
voidstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 02:07 PM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 2,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
Oh, the link is working fine, I'm just not seeing the "update" you quoted within that specific SeekingAlpha article. I can update the URL manually to go back to Page 1. If in that link they do refute their own article, that would be interesting and I would like to see that -- but I'm still not seeing it, and frankly I think you were mistaken (maybe inadvertently from a different article?). ...
Nope. My link in post #2 is to a Morningstar paper and the quotation is from that paper. Nothing to do with your link.
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 03:58 PM   #14
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldShooter View Post
Nope. My link in post #2 is to a Morningstar paper and the quotation is from that paper. Nothing to do with your link.
Thanks, I misread "The linked article says" as referring to the original link (since I focused on the "we have updated the data" part, as being an update to that original). Apologies. And thanks, yours is a good article.

My wifes' 401K has a selection with 0.84 Expense, which kills me since all our other broad market selections are like 0.1 or lower. But currently they don't have a better option in that category; maybe we'll go Self Managed for that account, if they'll let her. And I'll agree, of any success it appears we've had, it is probably mostly just luck. But I don't think it could have "failed" or done much worse than just the fire-and-forget approach, since it aligns with reasonable principles. Thanks again!
voidstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 05:37 PM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 2,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
... My wifes' 401K has a selection with 0.84 Expense, which kills me since all our other broad market selections are like 0.1 or lower. But currently they don't have a better option in that category; maybe we'll go Self Managed for that account, if they'll let her. ...
Yup, 84bps is a pretty high fee even for an international fund. Not to increase your misery, but worth checking: In addition to the fund expenses many 401Ks also have an account fee that is charged to the employees. Some of these are over 1%.

Re luck, the data say that any short-term wins or losses are primarily due to luck. The market signal is so noisy that it is easy to get lucky once in a while. That is why people keep going to casinos, too. It's called random reinforcement and it is very addictive for animals, including lab rats and humans.

What you are calling "fire and forget" is really a strategy of deliberately and tenaciously ignoring the noise and instead betting on the historical tendency for markets to rise. After all, as shareholders, we have all those employees working to make their companies successful and to make money for us. Sort of an inexorable overall force hidden in the noise.
OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 03:06 AM   #16
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldShooter View Post
What you are calling "fire and forget" is really a strategy of deliberately and tenaciously ignoring the noise and instead betting on the historical tendency for markets to rise. After all, as shareholders, we have all those employees working to make their companies successful and to make money for us. Sort of an inexorable overall force hidden in the noise.
It is a strategy that did work out for me through the 2008 bust -- as one of those workers bees, I was so busy working then that I was oblivious there was any financial "problem". I was on constant travel in those days, and into places with little news media broadcast. I do recall at the end of that year seeing a statement about "-40% return", but shrugged it off and didn't change a thing (kept contributing my same 10%). By 2011-ish, it was as if nothing had happened, the trendlines continued off from that cliff in pre-2008. So yes, I trust the market. Another one of my favorite articles from 2014 is: The Stock Market: A Look at the Last 200 Years | Base Hit Investing



There is indeed an exceptional amount of noise in the market. I'm baffled by the chart readers, when chronically whatever they said yesterday turns out not to the case -- yet then they do it all over again. It's a fine art that isn't for me.
voidstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 09:14 AM   #17
Full time employment: Posting here.
Tailgate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
Another one of my favorite articles from 2014 is: The Stock Market: A Look at the Last 200 Years | Base Hit Investing



There is indeed an exceptional amount of noise in the market. I'm baffled by the chart readers, when chronically whatever they said yesterday turns out not to the case -- yet then they do it all over again. It's a fine art that isn't for me.



thanks for this link...excellent read.
__________________
When people ask me "what do you do?" I always answer with "whatever it takes".
Tailgate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 09:22 AM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Tampa
Posts: 2,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
It is a strategy that did work out for me through the 2008 bust -- as one of those workers bees, I was so busy working then that I was oblivious there was any financial "problem". I was on constant travel in those days, and into places with little news media broadcast. I do recall at the end of that year seeing a statement about "-40% return", but shrugged it off and didn't change a thing (kept contributing my same 10%). By 2011-ish, it was as if nothing had happened, the trendlines continued off from that cliff in pre-2008. So yes, I trust the market. Another one of my favorite articles from 2014 is: The Stock Market: A Look at the Last 200 Years | Base Hit Investing



There is indeed an exceptional amount of noise in the market. I'm baffled by the chart readers, when chronically whatever they said yesterday turns out not to the case -- yet then they do it all over again. It's a fine art that isn't for me.
I tell folks the same thing. Even though I was in the industry, I was so involved with work that I didn't really follow my investments so closely.
I saw the 40% loss at the end of the year, but didn't act on it more of ignorance.
__________________
TGIM
Dtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 11:18 AM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 2,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by voidstar View Post
... I'm baffled by the chart readers, when chronically whatever they said yesterday turns out not to the case -- yet then they do it all over again. ...
Oh, I think I can explain this.

First, we humans have maybe 100,000 years of evolution during which we were bred to be optimistic and to consider ourselves individually to be exceptional. (The Lake Woebegon Effect). These are survival traits. So we enthusiastically sail into situations where the average result is known to be a loss. Casinos, for example, will never go out of business. Lotteries, too, are immortal -- which is exceptionally sad because they are basically a tax on the poor and the ignorant.

Second, the DOL says that there are about 950,000 people employed in the investment industry. I would double this to add all the web pages and publications that depend on industry advertising. For all of these people, promoting the myth that stock picking works is central to their getting their paychecks. It is not necessarily that they are bad people. Upton Sinclair explains: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

The real test IMO is this: If a person, chartist, financial analyst or internet loudmouth, really knows how to predict the market, why would he/she stuffing themselves into a suit every morning to work for a salary in a building where the windows don't even open, or be sitting bleary-eyed at a computer hustling for clicks while writing for SeekingAlpha? Logic says they wouldn't be. They would be on a tropical island somewhere drinking from a glass garnished with an orchid. Every once in a while, when the checking account got low, they would amble over to the computer and do a few trades.

So "they do it all over again" because that is the only way they know how to make money -- gulling the gullible.
__________________

OldShooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Expense Ratios and 12b-1 fees PapaBear67 FIRE and Money 13 04-17-2016 10:17 PM
Vanguard changing expense ratios on 50 funds REWahoo FIRE and Money 2 12-29-2012 03:35 PM
need help with my fund selection and expense ratios..thanks dooo42 FIRE and Money 2 10-09-2011 09:28 AM
Tweaking expense ratios with Vanguard VIPERs Nords FIRE and Money 5 04-12-2008 04:20 AM
funds within funds and expense ratios? igsoy FIRE and Money 6 08-25-2007 10:56 AM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:35 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.