the ongoing "active" vs "passive" debate

Asset allocation, risk, diversification and rebalancing. Pros/cons of hiring a financial advisor. Seeking advice on your portfolio?
Post Reply
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 24699
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

The active management shell game

Post by Bylo Selhi » 03 Apr 2005 18:01

Click here to play.

[From here.]
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.

Over50
Bronze Ring
Bronze Ring
Posts: 10
Joined: 20 Jun 2005 12:38
Location: Truro, NS

Active Management

Post by Over50 » 28 Sep 2005 08:17

“We've been trimming back the weights in our energy names,” said Garey Aitken, who co-manages the $2.5-billion Bissett Canadian Equity Fund in Calgary, and is underweight on energy.

“As active managers, we're going to have a portfolio that's different than the index,” he said. “In the fullness of time, we think that strategy will be validated.”
I always thought that the "fullness of time" meant "never"

User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 24699
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: Active Management

Post by Bylo Selhi » 28 Sep 2005 08:24

Over50 wrote:I always thought that the "fullness of time" meant "never"
Translation: "Some time in the future but I haven't a clue when."
Shorter translation: "Eventually."

And history shows that in the fullness of time their predictions do come true -- often after they've given up waiting and they're back to being overweight ;)
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.

User avatar
gummy
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 17:38
Location: Burlington, Ontari-ari-ari-O
Contact:

the ongoing "active" vs "passive" debate

Post by gummy » 09 Oct 2005 10:01

Has anybuddy read Carosa's article on the ongoing "Passive vs Active" debate?

Although one can debate the validity of his methodology (and identify at least two glaring mathematical errors), I think the article is quite interesting.

Anyone know of any other long-term analysis that considers the dollars invested in actively managed funds (what he calls "asset-weighted", as opposed to comparing S&P returns to the simple "equal-weighted" average of fund returns, where $10B and $10M funds have equal weight)?

Small Investor Activist
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 851
Joined: 17 Jun 2005 23:36

Post by Small Investor Activist » 09 Oct 2005 10:23

You passive people don't get it, it's not whether your return is ahead 1 or 2%. Investing for retirement is about survival, capital preservation, making sure the worst case scenario, a steep bear market, doesn't wipe out your life savings. The problem with passive theory is that it suggests to investors that they put their money on auto-pilot and forget about it whereas active mandates give managers more room to manoeuvre. Unfortunately in practice most active managers are tied to conflicts and aren't as able to steer around trouble.

User avatar
Brix
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 3249
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 12:29
Location: Victoria

Post by Brix » 09 Oct 2005 10:50

Small Investor Activist wrote:it's not whether your return is ahead 1 or 2%. Investing for retirement is about survival, capital preservation, making sure the worst case scenario, a steep bear market, doesn't wipe out your life savings.
Why would being ahead 1 or 2% following a steep bear market be a bad thing (presuming, naturally, that one has an appropriately balanced passive portfolio)? Is there any plausible evidence that active management is likely to perform better?

Or are you simply obsessing, as so many do, about equity funds in isolation from the concepts of portfolio design and management?

User avatar
moonman
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 198
Joined: 19 Apr 2005 10:00

Post by moonman » 09 Oct 2005 11:21

Brix wrote:Or are you simply obsessing, as so many do, about equity funds in isolation from the concepts of portfolio design and management?
Or are you simply obsessing? , as so many do, about equity funds in isolation from the concepts of portfolio design and management? is a more appropriate question. :lol:
Here's lookin' atcha.

User avatar
nadreck
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 807
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 12:21
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Re: the ongoing "active" vs "passive" de

Post by nadreck » 09 Oct 2005 13:18

gummy wrote:Although one can debate the validity of his methodology (and identify at least two glaring mathematical errors), I think the article is quite interesting.
Gummy, while the article is interesting, and flys in the face of some of the precepts I base my overal investing 'plan' on (ex. Funds as a group invest poorly compared to the average intelligent investor who activily invests for themselves), I am interested in what you see as mathematical errors. The ones I observed were:

So launching right in, I observe that either all mutual funds with a bond, cash or other non equity component were eliminated which really does not fairly represent the range of actively managed mutual funds, or that they were included in which case again they are not fairly compared to equity indexes.

Also I saw no description of how the methodology for calculating the rolling 12 month averages dealt with funds which merged, ceased to exist or otherwise could not have returns calculated for the whole 12 month period. In fact I looked for a description of how it was handled from the 1975 period to now and also did not get any indication as to whether 'survivorship bias' was eliminated for the whole period.

And while the document made an attempt to justify averaging returns rather than compounding them, it still does not accurately reflect real performance of investors in actively managed funds or index funds either and is no more of a fair comparison than the alternative that they mentioned and chose this method over.

What also strikes me about this study is that it still captures a relatively narrow period in the market that may well be distorted by at least one glaring socio-economic accident of history: the main working career of the baby boomer. I would love to have comparisons between the next 30 years and the last to study *grin*.
gummy wrote:Anyone know of any other long-term analysis that considers the dollars invested in actively managed funds (what he calls "asset-weighted", as opposed to comparing S&P returns to the simple "equal-weighted" average of fund returns, where $10B and $10M funds have equal weight)?
Sorry, no, you, and this board have been my main source of studies. Over a 7 year period before I found the crew here my data mainly came from some pretty plebean sources. Nothing more exotic than Odean's "Trading is hazardous to your Wealth" or some of the ones David and Thomas Babson did in the 50's and mentioned in the articles of theirs published in "Classics: An investors anthology". On the other hand, besides four fingers and a thumb, while these studies give me background that I am interested in, I would relegate them to the realm of background on technical analysis and not on fundamentals. I tend to eschew technical analysis for investing decisions and relegate it to a kind of emotinal test when I go to buy or sell securities to be sure that my decision is carried out in a way that makes me leave a part of my trading up to an arbitrary external mediation.
Love within our lives! Live within our means! Invest in what we believe!

User avatar
gummy
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 17:38
Location: Burlington, Ontari-ari-ari-O
Contact:

Post by gummy » 09 Oct 2005 15:46

I am interested in what you see as mathematical errors
Sorry to disappoint, nadreck :oops:
... but the mathematical errors are the inequalities that jump out at you:

Emperor ≠ Emporer
and
Christopher ≠ Christoper

However, I'm still working on an "active" vs "passive" tutorial ...
so I may have more to say after our Thanksgiving dinner

I'm hoping to get some feedback/comments/criticism/etc. for that tutorial ... and even wrote Carosa, but he said he couldn't read the tutorial (?)

P.S. There's quite a discussion on M*
Click!

User avatar
nadreck
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 807
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 12:21
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Post by nadreck » 09 Oct 2005 15:56

gummy wrote:
I am interested in what you see as mathematical errors
Sorry to disappoint, nadreck :oops:
... but the mathematical errors are the inequalities that jump out at you:

Emperor ≠ Emporer
and
Christopher ≠ Christoper
Sorry, maybe its the sunshine and warm weather, are you saying you saw just the same flaws I enumerated? Given that I had 3 I thought we might be looking from different perspectives and I thought I could benefit from knowing yours.
gummy wrote:However, I'm still working on an "active" vs "passive" tutorial ...
so I may have more to say after our Thanksgiving dinner

I'm hoping to get some feedback/comments/criticism/etc. for that tutorial ... and even wrote Carosa, but he said he couldn't read the tutorial (?)

P.S. There's quite a discussion on M*
Click!
I will look through that discussion. Let me know when I can eyeball your own tutorial on the question, I will be happy to offer feedback.
Love within our lives! Live within our means! Invest in what we believe!

User avatar
nadreck
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 807
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 12:21
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Post by nadreck » 09 Oct 2005 17:50

OK gummy I read that thread and from it found your WIP (work in progress) and have the following observations:

You might look at the implications of trying to calculate a book value weighted return rather than an asset weighted return of funds. I am not sure of the implications myself, but somehow it seems to be a more accurate measure of return. However, I would note that it does not have any relationship to Investor Return.

Now given that I don't accept that Carosa demonstrated anything about actively managed funds performances because of the three areas for error which I pointed out. I am more interested in what your tutorial is trying to do.

BTW Gummy, for me, I would be even more interested still if you broadened it to Passive vs Active investor for people like me who don't see themselves ever investing in an actively managed mutual fund from the philosophical grounds that I won't pay such a large percentage of the take to the manager when I take all the risks. I would rater have a lower return than contribute to the managers benefits. Of course I also believe that individual investors as a gruop can do better than MF managers as a group Carosa's work not having convinced me otherwise.
Love within our lives! Live within our means! Invest in what we believe!

DenisD
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2501
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 01:24
Location: Calgary

Re: the ongoing "active" vs "passive" de

Post by DenisD » 09 Oct 2005 22:14

gummy wrote:Anyone know of any other long-term analysis that considers the dollars invested in actively managed funds (what he calls "asset-weighted", as opposed to comparing S&P returns to the simple "equal-weighted" average of fund returns, where $10B and $10M funds have equal weight)?
SPIVA: S&P Index Versus Active Funds Scorecard
SPIVA scorecards show both asset-weighted and equal-weighted averages, include survivorship bias correction to account for funds that may have merged or been liquidated during the period under study, and show style consistency for each style group across different time horizons.
added: May be only 5 years? :(

User avatar
gummy
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 17:38
Location: Burlington, Ontari-ari-ari-O
Contact:

Post by gummy » 10 Oct 2005 05:15

nadreck
Now that I'm replete with turkey, I'll head back to that tutorial.

Unlike SPIVA (which DenisD mentions), Carosa can be accused of comparing apples to oranges. SPIVA (at least) compared small cap to small cap, large to large, etc. using both "equal-weighted" to "asset-weighted".

SPIVA also considers survivorship.

Alas, SPIVA has data for (about) five years, as far as I can tell, and "the market" ain't been good.

My BIG problem (as was Carosa's), is finding the data over umpteen years (where unpteen > 5).

My personal opinion (until further study changes that opinion) is that, if "active" Mutual Fund investors were given a list other "active" investors and the returns they were getting (over umpteen years), they'd tend to pick for themselves the Funds that provided the investors with their largest returns.

Although that sounds like MF investors would (subconciously?) weight "active" Funds according to how much money was invested in them (hence, something like "asset-weighted"), that'd give more weight to "active" investors with jillions of dollars.

Anyway (although "who wins" is of no importance to me, since I don't do MFs), I sure don't like the old argument, like: "Passive has beaten 75% of Active Funds". I'd rather see some evidence that the average Investor (not the average Fund) did better or worse.

Indeed, as I said on another forum discussimg Carosa's article:

It'd be nice to see answers to the following questions:
[1] Do active Investors do better or worse than active Funds
[2] If so, over which time periods? (Bull markets? Bear markets?)
[3] Do active Investors do better or worse than passive Investors?
[4] If so, over which time periods? (Bull markets? Bear markets?)

User avatar
Brix
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 3249
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 12:29
Location: Victoria

Post by Brix » 10 Oct 2005 11:22

gummy wrote:[1] Do active Investors do better or worse than active Funds
...
[3] Do active Investors do better or worse than passive Investors?
Since investors (theoretically) invest their dollars in individually managed portfolios, which individual actively managed funds mimic to a lesser or greater extent, wouldn't you need sortable compilations of individual portfolio data to determine this?
I sure don't like the old argument, like: "Passive has beaten 75% of Active Funds". I'd rather see some evidence that the average Investor (not the average Fund) did better or worse.
Me too, but I suspect the question of what becomes of the average dollar invested in such-and-such a category of mutual fund is more answerable, if less useful.

Or maybe I've caught a bad case of analytical incoherence by reading Carosa. :) It's much easier to think about comparing actively- vs. passively-managed pension and institutional funds.

George$
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2612
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 20:46
Location: Toronto

Post by George$ » 10 Oct 2005 12:05

Gummy:

I'm a bit puzzled by your postings and tutorials on this topic:

I agree with you that there are many examples of meaningless statements, like
"Passive has beaten 75% of Active Funds"
And I agree that time-averages of a fund performance are meaningless unless one also provides the dollar-average performance of the fund over the same time period (something the mutual fund industry never does)

In your tutorial you list four possibilities:
1. The average Fund return?
2. The average Fund-dollar return?
3. The average Investor return?
4. The average Investor-dollar return?
I 'm inclined to think #1 and #3 are meaningless but #2 and #4 are meaningful. Yet you seem to focus on #3 and use Bill Gates' wealth as a straw man to justify it. I don't get it. Why isn't #3 pointless if #1 is pointless?

I have no idea who or what the "average Investor" is. Is it someone who has $5,000 invested, or is to someone with $50,000, or $500,000 etc? Does the "average Investor" buy and hold or does he she chase the hot performers?

Thus I'm puzzled by your above questions:
It'd be nice to see answers to the following questions:
[1] Do active Investors do better or worse than active Funds
[2] If so, over which time periods? (Bull markets? Bear markets?)
[3] Do active Investors do better or worse than passive Investors?
[4] If so, over which time periods? (Bull markets? Bear markets?)
I say "follow the money" :wink:

Earlier you asked
Anyone know of any other long-term analysis that considers the dollars invested in actively managed funds (what he calls "asset-weighted", as opposed to comparing S&P returns to the simple "equal-weighted" average of fund returns, where $10B and $10M funds have equal weight)?
I think some of Bogle's articles discussed this in some detail (but I don't have a link handy).

George$
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2612
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 20:46
Location: Toronto

Re: the ongoing "active" vs "passive" de

Post by George$ » 10 Oct 2005 12:16

gummy wrote:Has anybuddy read Carosa's article on the ongoing "Passive vs Active" debate?
I read most of the debate at Morningstar on this question. The two posts by Mick1 seemed the most compeling, namely:
7. An F for spelling and for content too
Mick1| 10-02-05 | 02:18 PM
I think this whole article is as crappy as the spelling in its title. We all know the "Arithmetic of Active Management". In any given market, it is a mathematical necessity that the average invested money unit underperforms the market by the weighted average amount of investment costs. It is an implication of this non-disputable fact that MORE than half of the money invested in any market MUST under perform the market. No amount of (spurious?) empirical research can get around this logical fact. Bar some other data mining tricks, there are only two possible explanations of which we can discount the first one right away: (1) Retail investors (small portfolios for short) outperformed large (i.e. institutional) investors or portfolios, which would mean that more than half of all investors (but not of all invested money units) outperformed the market. This explanation is so obviously implausible (and has never been proven to my knowledge) that we can forget it without further ado. (2) The study compares apples with oranges (the old and tired trick so familiar to all of us).In this case the "average US equity fund" is benchmarked against the S&P 500. Given the volatility of stock returns, it would be a statistical miracle if such a comparison did NOT yield outperformance of the average "US equity fund" for some periods (even very long ones). But the average US equity fund simply is not the same asset class as the S&P. It's as easy as that. A US equity fund may contain cash (I think more than 5% in most cases), small + mid caps, it may have a value or growth tilt, it may invest in foreign stocks (sector funds) and it may do a thousand other things apart from, yes, investing in the 500 largest US stocks. But that's not even the whole story. Even if in all periods consistently 49% of all funds outperformed (after costs) their correcly chosen benchmarkt (and the acitve crowd is not anywhere close to this) this would still by itself not prove the superority of active investing. First we would have to know the composition of the outperformers, i.e. whether there is consistency in this composition (we know there isn't). Forget this article...
13. #11
Mick1| 10-03-05 | 05:26 AM
I don't really follow your argument. Mutual funds and other institutional investors (together "Institutional Investors") in the agregate don't show different levels of investment skill -- that much we can assume if you agree. They make up for more than 80% of all invested money in the US equity market. Under these circumstances it is extremely difficult to conceive that a large outperformance of 2% points pa was possible on the back of another group on investors that was only one fourth the size of Insitutional Investors. Moreover, asset weighting mutual fund returns, as far as I know, REDUCES returns rather than increass them as this "Expert" claims. See for instances the data in Swensen's recent book or the Dalbar studies. Also, I don't have the slightest clue why using rolling one year returns instead of calender year returns should make a difference (other than a random difference). Let's just wait what academia does with this study. My guess is: "Total disregard" because it's simply too weird and too weakly grounded and argued to be taken seriously.

George$
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2612
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 20:46
Location: Toronto

Post by George$ » 10 Oct 2005 12:28

Brix wrote:[It's much easier to think about comparing actively- vs. passively-managed pension and institutional funds.
Brix: Do you have any links for comparisons of active vs passive managed pension funds?

User avatar
gummy
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 17:38
Location: Burlington, Ontari-ari-ari-O
Contact:

Post by gummy » 10 Oct 2005 13:14

Does the "average Investor" buy and hold or does he she chase the hot performers?
Good question. I have no idea, but I suspect that the "average" or "typical" (or "whatever") investor don't hardly stick $100K into a Fund at t = 0
... then wait to see what happens.

If we agree (do we?) that it's the Investors we should think about (and not the Funds), then (this morning) I looked at what DCA would do (that's the "typical" Investor, eh?) compared to what an S&P Index Fund would do (that's buy-and-hold, the kind of thing that Carosa considers)... over each 10-year period starting in 1955. I got this:
Image
(Them's annualized returns in the top chart.)

Conclusion(s):
Image

George$
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2612
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 20:46
Location: Toronto

Post by George$ » 10 Oct 2005 15:27

gummy wrote:I suspect that the "average" or "typical" (or "whatever") investor don't hardly stick $100K into a Fund at t = 0
... then wait to see what happens.
Yabut Gummy - your comments make a point.

The fact is there is no direct data about investors - how they invested or what they did and when. We must infer.

There is historical data for stocks, for funds, for indexes etc but there is no direct data for investors. (Unless you could capture the private records of the zillion investors you want to study.)

My point is that to get investor data, as opposed to fund data, you must make assumptions on how the investors used the funds. Thus it depends on your assumptions. Assumptions can be all over the map - and thus so can the "investor results".

I think that average Fund-dollar returns are about as close as you will get to Investor returns. After that it is all assumptions.

In looking for the Bogle article I came across this 2001 article
Three Challenges of Investing: --
Active Management, Market Efficiency, and Selecting Managers

And here is another Bogle from 2005 (there are too many others ..)
In Investing, You Get What You Don't Pay For
Image
(I was searching for another similar Bogle chart but so far have failed to find it)

My two cents.

User avatar
gummy
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 17:38
Location: Burlington, Ontari-ari-ari-O
Contact:

Post by gummy » 10 Oct 2005 16:18

My point is that to get investor data, as opposed to fund data, you must make assumptions on how the investors used the funds.
Amen to that!

As my sidekick sez:
>Huh? Can you get that data?
Only if I interviewed every "active" and "passive" Investor.

P.S.
It ain't easy to see how Bogle could calculate the Average Equity Fund Investor numbers. Maybe it's Carosa's "asset-weighted" stuff, you think?

User avatar
Brix
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 3249
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 12:29
Location: Victoria

Post by Brix » 11 Oct 2005 10:19

George$ wrote:Do you have any links for comparisons of active vs passive managed pension funds?
Sorry, I don't. OTOH, the argument is often made that active management of pension funds does badly compared to an index-portfolio benchmark, for example:
During a recent 15-year period, for example, 91 percent of the investment managers overseeing more than 200 major corporate pension funds underperformed a laughably simple portfolio. Somebody who had put 60 percent of his money into the Standard & Poor's 500 Index, a blue chip proxy, and 40 percent into the Lehman Intermediate Government/Corporate Bond Index, a popular fixed-income benchmark, would have beat the big boys.
There's plenty more evidence of that sort, some no doubt of rather better quality, available via simple web searches.

And of course the CFA Institute (formerly AIMR) notoriously indexes its own substantial institutional portfolio, claiming that this solves the political problem of choosing active management from among its members. (And not suggesting that part of that problem might well be the ruckus that would break out should underperformance occur.)

Awkwardly in the present context, these comparisons and observations still tend to be made on a per-fund-manager, rather than a per-dollar-invested basis.

George$
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2612
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 20:46
Location: Toronto

Post by George$ » 12 Oct 2005 14:05

gummy wrote:P.S.
It ain't easy to see how Bogle could calculate the Average Equity Fund Investor numbers. Maybe it's Carosa's "asset-weighted" stuff, you think?
You are correct on that Gummy; The following text comes from the above link (above the pretty chart) - with my emphasis in bold


from Bogle
We can't be sure exactly how much the average fund investor lagged the average fund, but we can estimate it by comparing the dollar-weighted returns actually earned by a fund's shareholders with the time-weighted returns of the fund itself (the conventional per-share calculation). During the past decade, the dollar-weighted returns of the 200 largest equity mutual funds—the returns actually enjoyed by their shareholders—lagged the time-weighted returns by fully 3.3 percentage points per year.

Let's assume that a similar 3.3 point shortfall applied for the past two decades. When we add those selection and timing penalties totaling 3.3 points to the 3.1 point shortfall of the average fund to the stock market itself, the gap grows to fully 6.4 percentage points. The average fund investor earned just 6.6 percent per year during that period, a pale shadow of the 13.0 percent of the stock market itself.

Summing it all up

So when we look at the performance of the average stock fund investor, and compound those returns, we see that a yawning chasm of almost mind-numbing proportions opens up between the return earned by the average fund and the return of stock market itself: $10,000 invested in the stock market two decades ago would still have grown by $105,000, and the average fund by $56,000. But on the evidence we have, that same initial investment by the average fund shareholder grew to just $25,900. Together, the cost penalty and the timing penalty and the selection penalty caused the average fund investor to earn only 25 percent of the profit that could have been earned by simply buying and holding the stock market itself.

User avatar
gummy
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 17:38
Location: Burlington, Ontari-ari-ari-O
Contact:

Post by gummy » 13 Oct 2005 05:17

George$
Aha! So Bogle does do asset-weighted.
'course, he still gives more weight to Bill Gates than to me :?

I suspect that an undecided "either active or passive" Investor would rather hear something like:
The average return for the "passive" Investor was X% and
the average return for the "active" Investor was Y% and
and X > Y (or maybe Y > X).


Anyway, I give up on the debate.
I'll jest recommend "passive" so nobuddy can blame me for bad advice.
I'll just blame "the market" :D

User avatar
Brix
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 3249
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 12:29
Location: Victoria

Post by Brix » 13 Oct 2005 14:09

gummy wrote:I suspect that an undecided "either active or passive" Investor would rather hear something like:
The average return for the "passive" Investor was X% and
the average return for the "active" Investor was Y% and
and X > Y (or maybe Y > X)
If you could get the majority of investors to look closely at the concept of average returns (except as a benchmark for dissatisfaction), you'd already deserve a statue in your honour. :)

User avatar
gummy
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 17:38
Location: Burlington, Ontari-ari-ari-O
Contact:

Post by gummy » 14 Oct 2005 09:40

Anyway, I give up on the debate.
I lied.
I'd completely forgotten Sharpe's proof that passive beats active :oops:

http://www.gummy-stuff.org/active-passive-2.htm#SHARPE

Post Reply