Index funds/ETFs - Questions

Discuss your favourite picks, broker, and trading or investment style.
User avatar
NormR
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5234
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 11:19
Contact:

Post by NormR »

Such a welcoming and friendly group we have here. Open to all sorts of different views.
User avatar
parvus
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 10014
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 16:09
Location: Waiting for the real estate meltdown on Rua Açores.

Post by parvus »

yogi wrote:
My only point here is that one should be very careful, again, about positing "human nature" as an explanation for behavioural patterns. Human behaviour is far too complex to be explainable in such biologically reductionist terms- the cultural aspect is necessarily a part, since any biological imperative can be satisfied in an infinite number of culturally-determined ways.
Hmm. Sounds to me, rather than biologicial imperatives or human nature, what we have here is a failure in communicative ethics and intersubjectivite understanding?

IOW people can't understand indexing, passive investing, buying and holding active picks at low cost, whatever, without considerable good-faith efforts to communicate them — as opposed to pushing a hot button. (Sometimes investing must seem like an election, I suspect, to many people; on a similar plane, financial economics is generally ignored/irrelevant since it seems to be disproven by the unanalysed cultural biases and triggers that actually do inform people's day-to-day behaviour. Now if we could get the behavioural finance theorists to examine the American pragmatists' "definition of the situation"...)

Anyway, sorry for the digression. Couldn't resist; just took out a book from the library on Habermas's recent work. (On the other hand, when I thought I was typing wikipedia into the browser to get a reference, I accidentally? ... typed in investopedia ... :roll: ).
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen — a wit
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki Your go-to guide for financial basics
Image
WishingWealth
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 6701
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 10:53

Post by WishingWealth »

Gosh; how come we're so smart and at the same time so deep into shit.

WW
User avatar
patriot1
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4883
Joined: 28 Feb 2005 03:53

Post by patriot1 »

Icarus wrote: In the end, I hooked her up with a non-commisioned advisor...
Is there any other kind? A "commissioned advisor"?

Like a "Used-car advisor"? "Real estate advisor"? Doesn't sound right, does it?

Why is it that it's obvious to everyone that commissioned salespeople who sell cars and houses are looking after themselves and the people who pay them, i.e. the sellers, but somehow this doesn't sink in when dealing with financial investments?

Would you go to a doctor who was getting a commission from writing prescriptions or admitting you to a hospital? A lawyer who was taking money from the party you're trying to negotiate with? Well that's a moot question, because of course that's illegal.

You want someone who is looking out for you, get someone who is paid by you, and only you.
User avatar
Gus
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2311
Joined: 11 Mar 2005 13:01
Location: Salt Spring Island, BC

Post by Gus »

Yogi wrote:Several of your anecdotes are familiar from my own experience with friends and family- and as I noted in my prior post to Norbert, even in the most indexing-positive market in the world, the US, retail indexing is still a minority approach. But in relative terms, as a proportion of total population, it is still much more popular than in Canada.
My DC plan with a major Canadian company offered a limited range of investment choices; all mutual funds, none of them index funds. The funds were mostly good, fairly low cost ones (such as PH&N) but the were all actively managed. No ETFs or stocks were allowed.

I recall hearing somewhere that US employee savings plans offer a wider range of choices and I wonder if those choices ever include cheap index funds such as Vanguard's? (I'm sure someone here who has had recent employment in the US can help.) If so, perhaps that might explain part of the US/Canadian difference. Certainly, had I been offered the choice of index funds in my employer accounts I would have started indexing earlier.

No financial advice I ever received through my employer or through my private accounts with Nesbitt Burns/BMO/Assante ever mentioned index funds, not even once. I know that it has been debated ad nauseam here, but, I think, that it's not the individual advisor's fault but an effect of the way the system of advisor compensation is structured. Maybe no other system would work in practice for Joe Average's small personal accounts but there's no excuse for employers not offering a better choice - and better advice - to employees in DC accounts.
Money ain't got no owners, just spenders. Omar Little
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29494
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Post by Bylo Selhi »

Gus wrote:I recall hearing somewhere that US employee savings plans offer a wider range of choices and I wonder if those choices ever include cheap index funds such as Vanguard's? (I'm sure someone here who has had recent employment in the US can help.) If so, perhaps that might explain part of the US/Canadian difference. Certainly, had I been offered the choice of index funds in my employer accounts I would have started indexing earlier.
From what I've read at M* VD forum, yes. And Vanguard itself is a major player in this space so naturally their plans would give access to index funds. (Some 20 years ago, when I joined IBM's DRIP, the "welcome package" included information on some mutual funds that were offered to IBM employees, including IIRC some low cost index funds, that I was (then) eligible to buy.)

Also in the US, 401(k) plans often allow for the ownership of stock. That's done primarily to allow employees to hold their own company's stock in their retirement accounts (cf. Enron), but one benefit of that is that those who are in the know can thus buy ETFs.
I know that it has been debated ad nauseam here, but, I think, that it's not the individual advisor's fault but an effect of the way the system of advisor compensation is structured.
Bingo! The way advisers are compensated is established by the fundcos who offer them "product" and the broker/dealers who employ them. IMO the organizations that represent advisers and who want to portray their members as true professionals, e.g. Advocis, should lobby hard to make that compensation structure less conflicted and more transparent than it currently is. Not doing so is an act of complicity in the current situation.
Maybe no other system would work in practice for Joe Average's small personal accounts
This is where we come full circle. Joe Average doesn't usually need complicated financial planning advice. He needs to learn what's in a book like The Wealthy Barber and Coffeehouse Investor. Then he needs to apply it! That means, first and foremost, to get spending and debt under control. Unfortunately, financial advisers don't get compensated for that stuff because of their current compensation structure. :shock:
there's no excuse for employers not offering a better choice - and better advice - to employees in DC accounts.
As I understand it in the US there's legislation like ERISA that forces employers to provide that education. Perhaps someone with direct experience can comment on how effective it is.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
User avatar
NormR
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5234
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 11:19
Contact:

Post by NormR »

Gus wrote:My DC plan with a major Canadian company offered a limited range of investment choices; all mutual funds, none of them index funds. The funds were mostly good, fairly low cost ones (such as PH&N) but the were all actively managed. No ETFs or stocks were allowed.
Did you actually look into the MERs you pay on the DC funds? Many funds in DC plans charge much lower fees than the comparable retail funds. Many charge less than all but the least expensive index funds in Canada. So, just how many basis points are you worried about?
Beek
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 89
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 20:46
Location: Winnipeg

Post by Beek »

Perhaps one factor is that there isn't a Canadian version of John Bogle or Burton Malkiel. There are no stars, no evangelists of indexing in Canada.
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Post by Shakespeare »

There are no stars, no evangelists of indexing in Canada.
Oh? :wink:
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29494
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Post by Bylo Selhi »

Shakespeare wrote:
There are no stars, no evangelists of indexing in Canada.
Oh? :wink:
:oops: I'm neither a star nor an evangelist. Sadly, the real star went supernova after being "muzzled" some 3 years ago.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
saylavbda
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 419
Joined: 02 Mar 2005 14:24

Post by saylavbda »

patriot1 wrote:Why is it that it's obvious to everyone that commissioned salespeople who sell cars and houses are looking after themselves and the people who pay them, i.e. the sellers, but somehow this doesn't sink in when dealing with financial investments?
Because I've never once seen a cars saleman advertise themselves as someone you should trust, as opposed to FAs who have been refered to as a "trusted financial advisor". Besides, just look at the names, Canada Trust, Royal Trust, etc. It's built into their names. How could you not trust their employees :? .
User avatar
Gus
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2311
Joined: 11 Mar 2005 13:01
Location: Salt Spring Island, BC

Post by Gus »

NormR wrote:
Gus wrote:My DC plan with a major Canadian company offered a limited range of investment choices; all mutual funds, none of them index funds. The funds were mostly good, fairly low cost ones (such as PH&N) but the were all actively managed. No ETFs or stocks were allowed.
Did you actually look into the MERs you pay on the DC funds? Many funds in DC plans charge much lower fees than the comparable retail funds. Many charge less than all but the least expensive index funds in Canada. So, just how many basis points are you worried about?
Yes, I did: most were low (>1% edit, oops, I meant <1%) some were middling (say 1.5%) and none were high. My main point was there were only active management options made available.

Companies have done very well out of the shift from DB to DC plans, which, as we all know, shifts the investing decisions from employer to employee. My company did provide some investor education but much of it came through the fund companies or the trust companies that held the DC plans. Never did I hear such simple concepts such as "costs matter" or "active management on average tends to underperform the index". Norbert Schlenker's views would no doubt have been as welcome in such seminars as Richard Dawkins' opinions would be at a bible camp.
Last edited by Gus on 13 Feb 2007 17:36, edited 1 time in total.
Money ain't got no owners, just spenders. Omar Little
User avatar
NormR
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5234
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 11:19
Contact:

Post by NormR »

Gus wrote:Yes, I did: most were low (>1%) some were middling (say 1.5%) and none were high. My main point was there were only active management options made available.

If the costs are comparable, why not 'settle' for a little active management?

Sounds like you want the lowest of low-fee passive investments plus investment advice for free. Nice if you can get it, but you shouldn't be surprised if you don't.
User avatar
Norbert Schlenker
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 7960
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
Contact:

Post by Norbert Schlenker »

Gus, your company's situation may have been unusual. I've seen other DCPPs from large companies that are pretty fair. One Calgary oil company that I know of uses PH&N and offers what looks like a pretty broad array of their products, except that they're all institutional versions of the funds. If you can buy PH&N Balanced for an MER of 0.3%, that's a great deal.

When we were in the US, my wife's 401(k) offered pretty much only high expense rubbish. When we left, she transferred that to an IRA at Vanguard to get out from under the fees. Regrettably, with the transfer already in motion, a package arrived describing the options in the successor 401(k) [because her employer had been bought out] and they were shockingly good. A TIPS fund for 2bp IIRC. An S&P 500 fund for 5bp IIRC. Much better than Vanguard, I was sorry I'd gotten her to sign the paperwork. :(

It would be interesting to hear from, say, an employee of one of the big Canadian banks about what's being offered to them. The banks are big employers, they manufacture product, so are they offering good deals to employees or charging them retail?
Nothing can protect people who want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
User avatar
Gus
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2311
Joined: 11 Mar 2005 13:01
Location: Salt Spring Island, BC

Post by Gus »

NormR wrote:
Gus wrote:Yes, I did: most were low (>1%) some were middling (say 1.5%) and none were high. My main point was there were only active management options made available.

If the costs are comparable, why not 'settle' for a little active management?
I did.
NormR wrote:Sounds like you want the lowest of low-fee passive investments plus investment advice for free. Nice if you can get it, but you shouldn't be surprised if you don't.
Not free, but as an employee benefit, a quid pro quo for the companies ditching their traditional responsibility to provide employees with dependable pensions.
Money ain't got no owners, just spenders. Omar Little
User avatar
Gus
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2311
Joined: 11 Mar 2005 13:01
Location: Salt Spring Island, BC

Post by Gus »

Norbert Schlenker wrote:Gus, your company's situation may have been unusual. I've seen other DCPPs from large companies that are pretty fair. One Calgary oil company that I know of uses PH&N and offers what looks like a pretty broad array of their products, except that they're all institutional versions of the funds. If you can buy PH&N Balanced for an MER of 0.3%, that's a great deal.
The plan was probably better than average and yes, IIRC, they did offer P,H & N funds with lower-than-retail MERs. My original point in bringing this up was to ask if the limited options provided to employees through company DC accounts in Canada was a factor in Canadians not embracing indexing and ETFs. For many people, their DC/LIRA account (and perhaps a company sponsored RRSP) is their first and only investment vehicle.

Obviously, companies can't run their DC accounts as if they were discount brokerages, so choices have to be limited, as do the frequency of transactions. But I don't see why a limited number of broad ETFs and index mutual funds could not be offered, as a choice, alongside managed funds.

Having said that, most people would still make lousy choices. If I may be permitted another anecdote, the take-up of the company's voluntary matching non-registered savings plan (5% for 5%) was amazingly low. I had a guy with an MBA reporting to me who didn't bother to contribute. If economically literate people are prepared to forgo 5% of their salary, it's hardly surprising that the sans culottes fail to get exercised about paying 2% MERs on their usually meagre savings.

Homer Simpson's epigram that I quoted previously still rules, unfortunately.
Money ain't got no owners, just spenders. Omar Little
YogiBear
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1482
Joined: 20 May 2006 20:13

Post by YogiBear »

Upthread, Gus wrote:
Yogi wrote:Several of your anecdotes are familiar from my own experience with friends and family- and as I noted in my prior post to Norbert, even in the most indexing-positive market in the world, the US, retail indexing is still a minority approach. But in relative terms, as a proportion of total population, it is still much more popular than in Canada.
My DC plan with a major Canadian company offered a limited range of investment choices; all mutual funds, none of them index funds. The funds were mostly good, fairly low cost ones (such as PH&N) but the were all actively managed. No ETFs or stocks were allowed.

I recall hearing somewhere that US employee savings plans offer a wider range of choices and I wonder if those choices ever include cheap index funds such as Vanguard's? ... If so, perhaps that might explain part of the US/Canadian difference.
Gus wrote:My original point in bringing this up was to ask if the limited options provided to employees through company DC accounts in Canada was a factor in Canadians not embracing indexing and ETFs.
No doubt it is a proximate cause for at least part of the difference. But again, Gus, take a step back- ask yourself, if US employee savings plans have a much greater tendency than Canadian ones to offer their employees low-cost index options among their choices (I don't know if that is true, but following your line of inquiry), then why is that the case?

Do US employees demand index options more often- and if so, why? Are US employee savings plan sponsors choosing index options more often- and if so, why? Are US index fund providers more aggressive in pushing their products to plan sponsors- and if so, how come they are so successful?

In short, your suggestion implies a series of further questions about how and why indexing options in the US are so much more visible and accepted than in Canada- which yet again brings us back to the central point of the discussion in this thread: the potential- but so far latent- interest among a much larger number of Canadian investors for indexing than is currently the case.
User avatar
Gus
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2311
Joined: 11 Mar 2005 13:01
Location: Salt Spring Island, BC

Post by Gus »

YogiBear wrote:No doubt it is a proximate cause for at least part of the difference. But again, Gus, take a step back- ask yourself, if US employee savings plans have a much greater tendency than Canadian ones to offer their employees low-cost index options among their choices (I don't know if that is true, but following your line of inquiry), then why is that the case?
At the risk of speculating and generalizing rather too much, I might suggest that Americans are rather more suspicious of conflicts of interest than we are. For example, Americans directly elect judges, Canadians are mostly content to have judges appointed by their betters; Americans don't trust independent functionaries to count ballots, they have to have representatives of both political parties involved in the actual counting, not just scrutinizing the process.

So, maybe Americans are more ready to ask cui bono? when presented with investing options or perhaps the regulators and employers there are more inclined to provide investors/employees with real choices and full disclosure (if only so they don't get sued). Maybe Canadians are generally more prepared to have blind trust in whatever father tells them to do. But, there are so many counter-examples to all this (electing GWB twice in a row, for example) that I don't think that this hypothesis would withstand much scrutiny.

The short answer is, I don't know.
Money ain't got no owners, just spenders. Omar Little
User avatar
parvus
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 10014
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 16:09
Location: Waiting for the real estate meltdown on Rua Açores.

Post by parvus »

yogi wote, in response to gus:
No doubt it is a proximate cause for at least part of the difference. But again, Gus, take a step back- ask yourself, if US employee savings plans have a much greater tendency than Canadian ones to offer their employees low-cost index options among their choices (I don't know if that is true, but following your line of inquiry), then why is that the case?

Do US employees demand index options more often- and if so, why? Are US employee savings plan sponsors choosing index options more often- and if so, why? Are US index fund providers more aggressive in pushing their products to plan sponsors- and if so, how come they are so successful?
I suspect it has something to do with ERISA, which mandates fiduciary responsibilities for U.S. plan sponsors. In Canada, just over two years ago, we got the Capital Accumulation Planguidelines, which are just that, guidelines. Beyond that, the DC market, which is still relatively new in Canada, is dominated by the lifecos, particularly Sun, but also Manu and Standard.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen — a wit
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki Your go-to guide for financial basics
Image
YogiBear
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1482
Joined: 20 May 2006 20:13

Post by YogiBear »

Gus wrote:I might suggest that Americans are rather more suspicious of conflicts of interest than we are.
parvus wrote:I suspect it has something to do with ERISA, which mandates fiduciary responsibilities for U.S. plan sponsors.
I don't know what the answer(s) is (are) either- but assuming your proposals are correct (and I agree they likely account for a good part of the issue), think about the implications.

But for such things as a different attitude towards "authority" in general, and different legal requirements imposed upon a part of the retail investing infrastructure, many more Canadian investors (as in the US) would have the opportunity- and awareness- to invest in low-cost index funds than is currently the case. Given the much greater US indexing participation rates, it is reasonable to assume that with such opportunity and awareness, a great deal more Canadian investors would be ready and willing to do so than presently.

This is not an example of the effects of immutable "human nature", for all time barring most investors from effective low-cost indexing- it is the result of social attitudes and institutions, both of which are notoriously mutable. That is why:
YogiBear wrote:what has been learned, to the relative financial detriment of so many retail investors, can be unlearned, as with any cultural artifact. Notwithstanding the apologists, there are many, possibly a great many, Canadian retail investors who- given some indication of how and why it is possible- would be willing and able to index, either DIY or with the assistance of a fee-based advisor. They deserve to make the choice to do so or not freely- not have it made for them by dependence on industry interests, or by evasive invocations of some undefinable notion of "human nature".
In any case, in the (telling :wink: ) absence of the apologists, this discussion has perhaps gone as far as it can. Thanks for the ongoing questioning, Gus and parvus- if you have further comments or criticisms, I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise, there were some potentially interesting branches developing upthread, so I'm going to withdraw to let this thread grow organically without further interference on my part. :D
bender
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Apr 2005 05:34
Location: BC and beyond

Post by bender »

I don't know anyone in the real world, besides me, that indexes.
Gus wrote:I have tried to share my low-cost indexing epiphany with several friends and have failed, in all cases.
I'm a DIY newb and my experience here is exactly the same as Gus' list. Friends and colleagues know that I have been reading a lot about the markets lately and often ask how I invest. When I respond they lean back and give that "you freak" look. Its simply not intuitive that the total market response can be a successful investing strategy. People seem to feel that if they did well in university or business they can kick the shit out of the "average" market returns. A common misconception I see is that inexperienced investors don't understand how future growth can be already priced into a stock.

The reason I'm here is that you guys are my financial mentors. So if DIY indexing hasn't reached mainstream yet, it has reached me - so thanks! :D

FYI my Canada-based DC plan does contain basic index funds.
User avatar
Arby
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3125
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 19:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by Arby »

Gus wrote: .... If I may be permitted another anecdote, the take-up of the company's voluntary matching non-registered savings plan (5% for 5%) was amazingly low. I had a guy with an MBA reporting to me who didn't bother to contribute. If economically literate people are prepared to forgo 5% of their salary, it's hardly surprising that the sans culottes fail to get exercised about paying 2% MERs on their usually meagre savings.
This press release from SunLife confirms Gus's observation ....
Sun Life Financial data shows Canadians don't take advantage of the benefits offered by group RRSPs

TORONTO, Feb. 14 /CNW/ - While Canadians tend to focus on individual RRSP contributions, many neglect a critical part of their overall retirement savings - group RRSP contributions.
According to data from Sun Life Financial, of the nearly 500,000 Sun Life members eligible for employer-sponsored RRSP programs, only 230,000 take advantage of them. Since many of these plans include company matching of employee contributions, this means Canadians are leaving money on the table. ....
User avatar
AltaRed
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 33398
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Post by AltaRed »

I have had the same experience that Gus noted. Many otherwise intelligent and brilliant employees, with the earning power, not taking advantage of 5% matching from our employer. It defied logic.
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29494
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Post by Bylo Selhi »

AltaRed wrote:I have had the same experience that Gus noted. Many otherwise intelligent and brilliant employees, with the earning power, not taking advantage of 5% matching from our employer. It defied logic.
Not only in the US: Are you saying no to free money from your employer?
About that money your employer has ready to add to your retirement savings. You're not wasting it, are you? Lots of Canadians are. Some aren't participating in group registered retirement savings plans and thus missing out on matching employer contributions... Many employees don't use their group RRSPs at all, despite the fact that employers typically match their contributions by anywhere from 25 to 150 per cent. Check out this factoid from insurer Sun Life Financial, which acts as the administrator for group RRSPs covering almost 500,000 employees. Yesterday, the company issued a press release saying only 230,000 of these people are using their group plans...

Employers themselves are starting to worry about how well the 3.2 million people with group RRSPs and defined-contribution (DC) plans are doing with their money. The concern is that retired workers are going to come back and sue their companies for not giving them the help they needed to make the most of their plans... One mistake that people make with their defined-contribution pensions and group RRSPs is to allow pension contributions to idle for years on end in low-yielding money market funds rather than investing them in equity and bond funds. Another is to set up a properly diversified mix of funds and never check back to rebalance or reassess...
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
lilbit
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 366
Joined: 09 Jan 2006 11:13
Location: Eastern Ontario

Post by lilbit »

With all due respect, Yielder (and I do respect your posts and your expertise - have learned a great deal from you), your comment about people not stepping up to take responsibility for their own investments is an oversimplification.
Working full time and looking after elderly parents left me with very little time to even think about anything other than what had to be done each day. I did not even know it was possible (or even legal) for me to look after my own investments, and didn't know anyone who did. That shows how little I knew at the time.
After losing much of my hard earned RRSP portfolio value to a negligent "advisor", I found out quite by accident that I could educate myself to look after my own. I paper invested for a year and read everything I had time to, while my cash sat in a high interest account. That year at least I had a positive return, though barely ahead of cost of living increase. Now I have a portfolio I feel comfortable with, and have learned much about this subject from investment forums like this one, and generous investors who share their knowledge with beginners like myself. I have also read all the classics.
I was not avoiding responsibility - I didn't even know it was a possibility to take this road. I have spoken with colleagues about this, and most of them are astounded that I would take this "risk"! My worst risk taking was investing with the "advisor". Now the portfolio is growing, and I can't thank people (wiser than myself) enough for all their help, and for this steep learning curve. :D
Good judgement comes from experience, which comes from bad judgement.
Post Reply