Bogleheads.org

Marseille07 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:32 pm

km91 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:24 pm Typically the risk free rate used in risk premium models is the 3mo t bill rate. Nothing can truly be risk free but the t bill rate is as close to zero credit risk, zero rate risk as can be

I see, that makes sense. I agree 3-mo T-bills are as close to zero risk as can be.

There's reinvestment risk if your time frame is longer than three months. There can also be inflation risk, although one wouldn't expect that much inflation in three months (but there obviously would be for longer time frames).

Think about it this way: The cap weighted market portfolio is the portfolio the average/representative/price setting investor thinks is the best available portfolio given all available information. In this case, average is weighted by portfolio or trading activity, and is not the average person. It provides an expected return sufficiently in excess of the risk free rate (whatever such investor considers the risk free rate) to induce the investor to take the risk. This representative investor may not be right (whatever right may mean) or even rational. All information would include the effects bad actors and everything else that might be known. Don't get bogged down in specific models, such as CAPM, as all models are simplifications of reali...

retiringwhen wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:23 am

Bogle-007 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:33 pm How does Turbo Tax (or other tax programs) decipher how much to state tax to charge? Is this info listed on Vanguard's tax form in a way that the program automatically understands?

Vanguard produces a report they publish ont he website under their tax center. You will need to enter data from that form into TT manually. Not hard, but frankly, the way TT asks the questions can be confusing. BTW, I only enter the data for my tax state (NJ) and lump all the other states into the “other” category.

Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc. should be exempt from state tax, or at least they are in NY.

And yes, it's easier to just enter NJ (or whatever) and "other" than to enter multiple lines.

Based on Matt Levine's newsletter, the prospectus for these AT1 bonds explicitly stated that they may come behind equity in some cases. The explicit triggering formula for being junior to equities may or may not, have been met in this case, but the bondholders should not have been surprised that they are behind equity in a situation in which Credit Suisse was on the verge of insolvency, if not over the edge. I'm not sure if how the prospectus covered the case of regulatory intervention in case the formula was not met, but perhaps there was a statement about being subject to the laws and regulations covering CS. There are many analyses of the situation by those who have not bothered to read the prospectus and governing documents. There are m...

e.g. data time period is too short, shouldn't limit to US, MC analysis is inappropriate, WR is too high (personal finance is personal)? Observed signal appears very strong to me. Your signal is likely not statistically significant because, using a period of 30 years, there are not even two completely independent periods in 50 years of data. Exactly. Approximately zero of the posts in this thread that look at historical data are statistically significant, yet people act as if they are ( anchoring? , streetight effect? , some other cognitive bias?). Periods with significant overlap don't have enough new signal to add much information. One or two independent data points is far from enough to draw meaningful conclusions in this context.

In no particular order:

1) Tax software with California and Georgia state modules.

2) Use a CPA.

3) Get the forms and instructions from both states. This is probably a good idea in any event.

As a follow up... While Basel III contains some stricter requirements in direct response to 2008, the bias towards government securities means that banks are doing even less to lend to businesses that can generate wealth. I'd much rather have a bank take term deposits and loan a good portion out to local businesses, than take demand deposits and use almost all of them to buy long dated government-backed securities. But the regulations encourage the latter much more than the former. I suppose the question to ask is if this is a problem or not. Is it particularly difficult to get a small business loan these days? If banks had to reach for yield on private loans we're back to 2008 but instead of just mortgages it would be loose lending to all...

If I had more than $10 million in today's dollars I wouldn't stop investing in stocks, but would probably make things like gold and real estate a sizable part of the portfolio. Because I wouldn't need the high return anymore as much as I'd need the non-correlation. That will never happen. I don't see any other game in town better for me than stocks. What you said about not being able to access/control your portfolio was interesting. If that were the case I too would not want the investment. Same would apply to bank accounts that started limiting my abilities, I'd find some other way to store the value. There are thousands of things that hold their value with time. To give an random example, plant a bunch of black walnut trees and you'll st...

You can keep the mutual fund account if you want and just open a new brokerage account. No need to convert the mutual fund account if you just want to be able to buy CDs through Vanguard.

Is a more diversified portfolio a better portfolio? Why wouldn't the market want, and move to, a better portfolio? Should we consider weightings by number of companies or by the economic value of the companies? Are you better than the market at evaluating economic value? Just to be clear, the average investor is not the average person, at least not for these purposes. See my representative/average investor post above. Perhaps the marginal price setting investor is another way to look at it. Investing is a highly competitive enterprise. Efficient is not the same as rational. Efficiency does not guarantee an accurate prices, only a price that incorporates all relevant information in the judgement of the market. If you are better at gathering...

If markets are efficient, it's hard to see how a tilt is more diversified - the average and therefore the market would move there. I don't think there's really an expectation that efficient markets will produce the most diversified portfolio for the average investor. The top 500 US companies make up 80% of the MCW of VTI, the bottom 4000 companies make up 20%. Are these weights really the most diversified portfolio a US investor could hold? Is a more diversified portfolio a better portfolio? Why wouldn't the market want, and move to, a better portfolio? Should we consider weightings by number of companies or by the economic value of the companies? Are you better than the market at evaluating economic value? Just to be clear, the average in...

We all know to “stay the course”, that the “market always recovers”, and long-term equity investors are rewarded. It may be the case that the market has always recovered and long-term equity investors have been rewarded, but there are no guarantees. Equities usually return more than bonds because they are riskier than bonds (risk premium). Risk includes the real possibility that they will underperform or lose money over any given time frame. If TIPS generated a real return, after taxes, sufficient to meet my anticipated needs, then I'd make sure I had enough TIPS, even if it meant giving up some potential equity upside. Otherwise, I'd make sure I had at least 20% or 25% in equities for diversification. If you're holding so much in equities...

It may be that there are some high profile layoffs while general hiring is strong. Overall statistics suggest this is the case. The UK economy has serious issues that appear to make unrepresentative of the rest of Europe or of the US. Charts of economic activity show a very noticeable divergence between the UK and the rest of Europe. There is a general atmosphere of fear and uncertainty about the economy. Surveys and anecdotal evidence show people are not happy with the economy. Headlines about a banking crisis and tech and finance layoffs don't help, even if it is the case that the banking crisis is limited to a few one-off cases and the layoff stories are not representative. Borrowings from the Fed and the FHLB indicate many banks are wor...

Unfortunately if you just hold TSM for US you ARE concentrated. I’ll say it again, that VTI’s top 10 holdings out of 3948 different stocks makes up 21.28% of the entire portfolio. 25.83% of the entire portfolio is information technology. 17.71% of tech holdings in the entire portfolio are in the top 10 holdings. If you throw in BRK it goes up since I’m pretty sure they also hold Apple. If you own the whole haystack you are still sector tilted. Why is it OK to tilt to a sector if that is what the market gives you, but only if that is what the market gives you? I don’t see that as being very diversified. If you are holding just S&P500 it gets even worse. TSM is not stagnant... just because it happens that technology companies are the tal...

The bond market opens at 8:00, at least the NYSE bond market - https://www.nyse.com/markets/bonds/market-info

Are you better at picking stocks and constructing portfolios than the collective judgment of the market?

Do you have unusual risks, such as working for one of the largest companies in the index?

If the answers to these questions are no, why would you think you could do better than owning what's essentially the equity market portfolio?

Forget about the Buffet mantra. Follow the "chicken mantra" which means that the closest thing to a free lunch is diversification, and don't put all of your eggs in one basket. You never want to make a concentration bet on one sector of the economy. Unfortunately if you just hold TSM for US you ARE concentrated. I’ll say it again, that VTI’s top 10 holdings out of 3948 different stocks makes up 21.28% of the entire portfolio. 25.83% of the entire portfolio is information technology. 17.71% of tech holdings in the entire portfolio are in the top 10 holdings. If you throw in BRK it goes up since I’m pretty sure they also hold Apple. If you own the whole haystack you are still sector tilted. Why is it OK to tilt to a sector if that ...

Vanguard had a Short-Term Tax-Exempt Bond fund, which they recently renamed Ultra Short-Term Tax-Exempt Bond, symbol VWSUX. Average maturity is about 1.5 years. I guess they renamed that to make room for the new ETF.

As noted, 0-7 years is hardly short.

The focus should also be on bank ownership. A properly incentivized shareholder with a financial interest in a bank should IMO be a better administrator than any bank examiner or regulator with no money at risk. A shareholder base concerned about its investments would have been more tuned to the risks in SVB’s portfolio and could have forced changes to their balance sheet before it was too late. The problem is that a shareholder's downside is limited to their investment while the upside is unlimited. It can make sense from a shareholder's point of view to take a very large degree of risk, because that substantially increases the upside without changing the downside. And after seeing how well the Fed manages its own balance sheet why would ...

I think the quotation, at least as usually attributed, is "Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful." The reason why not is that it is not actionable, because it does not give you any objective or quantifiable way to tell how greedy or fearful "others" are, and thus does not tell you when to buy or sell. It is no more useful than "Buy low, sell high." It's just a Rorschach inkblot that gives you an opportunity to project your own unreliable feelings into the situation. By staying the course in a total market fund, however, it can be said (in the same vague way) that guarantees that I will be less fearful when others are fearful, and less greedy when others are greedy. Another Buffe...

Florida Orange wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 9:24 pm

secondopinion wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:11 pm

rockstar wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:59 pm Takes some time to figure out what makes you happy versus what marketing tells you will make you happy. That’s been my experience.

Right. Marketing is lost on me; they would do themselves a favor by having all the details and the price upfront. I have a better gauge of my own happiness then they do.

There is a lot of evidence that some of the most effective marketing is the marketing that you don't think works on you. The only thing more effective may be marketing that you don't realize is marketing.

I wonder about how effective marketing is on me. I use ad blockers, mute ads on TV and don't follow any "influencers".

It's important to remember the purpose of banks in today's society: 1) Take in deposits. The vast bulk of these deposits will be repayable on demand and won't charge for that privilege. 2) Make loans. Loans are rarely payable on demand and they entail risk. Credit is a very important function in the economy. There are numerous articles today to the effect tightening credit curtails economic activity. Society likes economic activity. To make the system work, there's deposit insurance and regulation to make sure banks are not taking excessive risk (e.g., capital requirements). Banks borrow short, lend long and are supported by confidence in the system. In normal times, it all works rather well. Without confidence, you get bank runs that rende...

Is there anything in the wiki that needs a correction? See: Bond pricing (Day count conventions) The table shows US Treasuries using actual days, whereas corporate bonds use the 30/360 day count convention. Actual/actual (day count parameter = 1) is correct for Treasuries. Changing the day count parameter does not resolve the issue about bills when they use 366 days in their calculations. The other thing is that the usage is not consistent. I bought four treasuries recently at auction via Fidelity and I have three different results: 1) Fidelity's confirmations used 365 days on two of the four and 366 on the other two; 2) TD's results showed yields based on 366 days for all four, and 3) the secondary quotes at Fidelity are using 365 for all...

In the last several minutes Powell just said "depositors shoule assume that their deposits are safe... they've seen what happens". I thought he'd add something to the effect, because the system is sound and resilient. Instead he seemed to imply blanket depositor coverage. A different spin than Yellen, who testified that it wasn't something they have looked at https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1638624941502242834/photo/2 Not insuring deposits doesn't make any of this better. It makes it worse by concentrating risk at big banks and accelerating the panic if something goes wrong. Some people are recommending a consolidation in the banking industry and are saying a few large diversified banks would work better than our current syst...

In the last several minutes Powell just said "depositors shoule assume that their deposits are safe... they've seen what happens". I thought he'd add something to the effect, because the system is sound and resilient. Instead he seemed to imply blanket depositor coverage. A different spin than Yellen, who testified that it wasn't something they have looked at https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1638624941502242834/photo/2 Not insuring deposits doesn't make any of this better. It makes it worse by concentrating risk at big banks and accelerating the panic if something goes wrong. Some people are recommending a consolidation in the banking industry and are saying a few large diversified banks would work better than our current syst...

Powell: clear need for more supervision and regulation, The Fed is reviewing the SVB situation with a view to identifying what went wrong and how to make sure it doesn't happen again. He views the problems as more specific to SVB than general to banking, which is consistent with the FOMC statement about the US banking system being sound and resilient. He's not concerned about weakness in the real estate sector.

The FOMC expects a tightening of credit conditions. In other words, banks will be more conservative with their balance sheets, which means it will harder to get loans. The effects on the economy are similar to a rate hike.

FOMC, raising 25bps, says:

The U.S. banking system is sound and resilient. Recent developments are likely to result in tighter credit conditions for households and businesses and to weigh on economic activity, hiring, and inflation. The extent of these effects is uncertain.

A fundamental aspect of the system is that bank depositors expect to get deposits back on demand (other than time deposits, of course). That's one basic advantage of bank deposits over MM funds, etc. Major companies use banks for making payments precisely because the payee gets the money immediately. Adding liquidity gates for large deposits obviously challenges that. Using a common example from this thread, what do you do if you're a massive company making payroll - you deposit $50 million (or whatever) and suddenly you can't pay your employees (which can result in personal liability to management or the board) or are charged a large liquidity fee? Do you carefully examine the books and do stress tests twice a month? That seems impractica...

Speaking of more deposit insurance, according to the WSJ: During the 2008 financial crisis, the FDIC temporarily expanded deposit insurance, guaranteeing deposits in all non-interest-bearing transaction accounts. With the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, lawmakers constrained regulators’ ability to provide universal insurance, requiring Congressional approval for such a move. The Mid-Size Bank Coalition of America recently urged regulators to immediately guarantee all deposits in the U.S. for two years. If they were to move forward with raising the deposit insurance cap, lawmakers would have to decide how high to raise it, whether to expand coverage for all accounts or only business accounts, and how the insurance could be financed. Sen. Joe Manchin (D...

It seems to me that "we" should take a big step back and rethink the system as a whole. Individual investors need $250,000 of insurance Maybe more. There is an intermediate class of investors, like small-to-medium businesses, that should not be expected to perform sophisticated due diligence for an ordinary necessity. There should be business accounts with a higher amount of insurance. What's the right number? $10 million? $50 million? Whatever it is, it should be a different account, and banks should have to pay a larger assessment into the FDIC to cover the additional insurance, which should get reflected back in the form of lower deposit rates. Beyond that, depositors are big boys and uninsured should mean uninsured. Customers...

The WSJ has an article to the effect that SVB almost got $20 billion of liquidity from loans from the FHLB or the Fed discount window, but due to the slow mechanics of the FHLB system, was not able to get the money in time. Whether it would have mattered, that is, affected the ongoing run, is of course unknown.

Make some phone calls. I paid $3,999 for my brother's estate and had an excellent probate attorney. Was that to administer the estate or just to probate the Will? For a simple, not very large estates, I'd think somewhat sophisticated executors could administer themselves. For example, an estate that consists of liquid financial assets at brokerages and banks, a home and some minor miscellany. They'd need an attorney to get letters testamentary, retitle the real estate and draft an indemnity agreement for the executor. The executor could move the financial assets and file a simple 1041. If much more is needed or if the executor is uncomfortable, then more help (and expense) would be needed. If a Form 706 is needed, then a professional shoul...

the latest: Janet Yellen says the U.S. is ready to protect depositors at small banks if required First Republic. Credit Suisse. You can smell the fear in the Central Banking room. Everyone will be having PTSD over 2008-09. Decisions made in the middle of the night after exhausting days of calls & negotiations. Presentations to the most senior government people there are**: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqYTQB6lrQQ Big firewalls were put in place post 2008. Now we get to find out if they work. Equity buffers. Liquidity buffers. So far the AT1 bonds have ... misfired. Badly. That's not a good place to be. ** Famous line from the crash. Young Goldman Sachs banker in the taxi to the Principal. "I am not sure how much more of this I ...

Instead of YIELD you can use the formula
with 365 or 366 as appropriate. See the discussion above.

johnpau wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:19 pm

gotoparks wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:27 pm It is better to stay below the FDIC limit. VUSXX is Vanguard's Treasury Money Market and is a good one to get. You can also get a High Yield Savings Account.

Can we easily buy and sell these VUSXX like an ETF ?

It's a money market mutual fund, not an ETF. https://investor.vanguard.com/investmen ... file/vusxx

You can buy and sell the same as any mutual fund.

A nice explanation of the government response to SVB: https://twitter.com/Brad_Setser/status/ ... 2689548291

I hadn't realized the Fed changed discount window terms.

I strongly disagree with forgetting squats and deadlifts as you get older. Exactly. Bodies adapt to imposed demands. Rest and your body becomes very good at resting. Move and you body gets better at moving. Get stronger in important movement patterns, such as with squats and deadlifts, and your body gets better at those movements. If the average untrained individual deteriorates with age, they can easily need a walker or wheelchair, etc. Someone who's training important movements will be less likely to deteriorate and, if they do, will be in much better shape than others. Plus strong backs, knees, etc. are less likely to hurt. Obviously don't do things which make your condition worse. That's why it's important to proceed slowly and cautiou...

alex_686 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:35 am

technovelist wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:22 am Yes, if there hadn't been a bank run, SVB would have been fine (we assume).

We don't assume that. The balance sheet was showing the stress of the duration mismatch. The probably colipase was written on the wall. The bank run just sealed the deal.

Showing signs of stress is one thing. Actually collapsing is another. Many things could have happened that would allow SVB to continue on its merry way, such as a better handled capital raise, rates declining or probably even stabilizing, the Fed's new lending program. We just don't know how it might have played out.

According to the WSJ: Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is expected to tell a banking conference on Tuesday that the federal government could step in to protect depositors at additional banks if regulators see a risk of a run on the banking system. ... “Our intervention was necessary to protect the broader U.S. banking system. And similar actions could be warranted if smaller institutions suffer deposit runs that pose the risk of contagion,” Ms. Yellen will say, according to excerpts of her prepared remarks. ... Treasury officials have said deposit outflows from regional banks have slowed or even reversed since the federal government staged its intervention last week. If people believe the government will effectively guarantee all deposits, ...

They have plenty if people don't take all of their money out at once. They held long bonds that temporarily lost value and only had an issue when forced to redeem everything at once. The people running for the door caused the problem they were afraid of. This is not true in SVB's case. They had to sell treasuries at a loss before the bank run happened: https://ir.svb.com/news-and-research/news/news-details/2023/SVB-Financial-Group-Announces-Proposed-Offerings-of-Common-Stock-and-Mandatory-Convertible-Preferred-Stock/default.aspx "Additionally, earlier today, SVB completed the sale of substantially of its available for sale securities portfolio. SVB sold approximately $21 billion of securities, which will result in an after tax loss of...

I strongly disagree with forgetting squats and deadlifts as you get older. Exactly. Bodies adapt to imposed demands. Rest and your body becomes very good at resting. Move and you body gets better at moving. Get stronger in important movement patterns, such as with squats and deadlifts, and your body gets better at those movements. If the average untrained individual deteriorates with age, they can easily need a walker or wheelchair, etc. Someone who's training important movements will be less likely to deteriorate and, if they do, will be in much better shape than others. Plus strong backs, knees, etc. are less likely to hurt. Obviously don't do things which make your condition worse. That's why it's important to proceed slowly and cautiou...

technovelist wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:36 am 1. It is precisely the mismatch of maturities between notes and demand deposits that caused the problem.

The mismatch was a necessary but not sufficient condition for the problem. Without a bank run, SVB would be fine. It's not one or the other issue, it's both.

A more typical modern bank would have had a much larger share of its assets in individual and consumer loans, which are less liquid, riskier and harder to value than treasuries.

According to the WSJ: Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is expected to tell a banking conference on Tuesday that the federal government could step in to protect depositors at additional banks if regulators see a risk of a run on the banking system. ... “Our intervention was necessary to protect the broader U.S. banking system. And similar actions could be warranted if smaller institutions suffer deposit runs that pose the risk of contagion,” Ms. Yellen will say, according to excerpts of her prepared remarks. ... Treasury officials have said deposit outflows from regional banks have slowed or even reversed since the federal government staged its intervention last week. If people believe the government will effectively guarantee all deposits, t...

I recently listened to the latest Wealthtrack. (https://wealthtrack.com/wheres-the-recession-leading-economist-nancy-lazar-on-the-legacy-liquidity-still-fueling-the-economy/) The economist there seems pretty savvy, and says these bank failures are something of a canary in the coal mine in terms of indicating a recession is coming. Another indicator of the pending recession (and accompanying drop in share prices) is the layoffs in big tech, which will soon move over to retail when the retail companies can't continue to increase their profits. She says a recession has been staved off due to all the liquidity in the economy. This thinking seems to make sense, but does it, really? And is it actionable (to some of us; for example, those of us w...

Grt2bOutdoors wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:38 pm

snackdog wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:33 pm You are in good company if you are concerned about uninsured deposits at any small or regional back (e.g. small enough to fail).

You are fooling yourself if you think “any” bank is too big to fail. Even with all of the extra scrutiny and designation of a G-SIFI, institutions can fail if all the dominoes are in the right order. Hence, if you are unable to shoulder the potential losses, one should diversify holdings including considering lending your money to the federal government by directly purchasing Treasury bills.

If SVB was systematically important enough to have its depositors made whole by the government, then it's very hard to see how depositors at Chase, BofA, Citi, etc. are anything other than safe.

GoFish wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:32 pm I am probably exposing my ignorance, but why should I feel more secure in a non-insured MM fund at a brokerage than non-insured deposits at a bank?

The investment policies and regulation of money market funds make them extremely safe. The fund companies which sponsor MM funds (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc. will almost certainly support them if there's a problem. There's only been one notable failure of a MM fund - the Reserve Fund in September 2008, triggered by the fall of Lehman Bros.

Banks by their nature run a higher degree of risk. The basic business model is borrow short (demand deposits) and lend long (consumer and business loans tend to be longer than repay on demand and are riskier) and many banks have failed.

A stronger body part is more likely to function well and be pain free. If you rest the body part, it will get weaker and less functional.

The key is to train in a way that you won't get injured. I've found the best way to do that is to proceed slowly and cautiously. Far and away the leading cause of injury I've seen is people pushing too hard and trying to lift weights that they were not well prepared to lift. You can adapt to bad form (within reason). You can't readily adapt to adding a lot of weight or reps. Challenging but well short of a grind is usually good.

Cool thread. Wish I had started training years ago. Anyway started getting serious about weight training/hypertrophy about 3 yrs ago. Covid lockdown & work from home ended up being good for me :) 50 yrs old; 5' 8''; 157lbs BF: ~18-20% Calories: ~2300/day; ~Macros: 240g Carb, 175g protein, 70g fats Benchpress: 140lbs Squat: 185lbs RDL: 210lbs OHP: 100 lbs squats, deadlifts, farmer's carry, suitcase carry are way more effective for core/ab than crunches. I recently started taking Creatine (2-3g/day). Anyone else 50yrs+ taking Creatine and have feedback on long term usage side effects? Older, similar size, somewhat similar stats, major difference is DL at about 350. I take about 5g of creatine a day. I'm not sure exactly what it's doing, ...

VoiceOfReason wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:26 pm Let me ask it another way. The president of the US, or a wealthy person like Bill Gates, what kind of testing do they have done annually? Are they getting exactly the same preventative testing done as regular people or are they getting additional testing? If so, what are they getting and why?

One would hope they're getting advice such as https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/wh ... my-health/ which is much more likely to improve health than a bunch of asymptomatic screening tests "just in case".

Do you actually have an answer to your question?

brainstem wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:17 pm

Same with a lot of non-invasive cardiac testing like an echocardiogram or a stress test. I'd like to have those done regularly and have a history of those tests on file for analysis as I get older, but that is not the recommendation for the masse

Beware of asymptomatic stress tests -- there are more false positives than true positives -- it is not a good screening test.

There are a lot of tests that are only valid if you're symptomatic or otherwise at risk. That's one problem with general preventive screening.