new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
larryswedroe
Posts: 16022
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
Location: St Louis MO

new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by larryswedroe »

https://www.aqr.com/cliffs-perspective/ ... id-defense

what he's getting at is basically that the good side of hedge funds is that they can provide exposure to strategies other than beta, allowing for more of a risk parity type strategy, which has been more efficient due to diversification benefits. Of course you still have all the negatives, mostly very high fees (and black box nature)
Larry
Pizzasteve510
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by Pizzasteve510 »

Thanks.n really good stuff. I had a fairly large chunk of assets at a former employer's retirement fund that prominently featured a hedging strategies offering. Since I could easily buy index funds on my own with taxable savings, I bought the asset class diversification story for that account, to the tune of roughly 20pct of my assets. This was before finding this site.

On digging into it in detail, I was surprised to read that fees were over 7pct per year. I knew fees were high but never imagined a 7pct drag. Needless to say it underperformed my personal accounts with their index offerings horribly last year and I closed the account.

Perhaps it was a lost opportunity, as I will never have access to such slick assets classes again, but my lingering feeling is that the choices reflected smart people wanting too hard to impress the world.
metacritic
Posts: 413
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:58 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by metacritic »

My wife's 401k also offered a hedged opportunity, which underperformed indexed funds (also offered at very good rates) in the years she worked there (2006-2012). While I regret the drag I'm glad for the experience in using those funds, seeing the results, and the push it gave us to becoming users of indexes at every opportunity.


Pizzasteve510 wrote:Thanks.n really good stuff. I had a fairly large chunk of assets at a former employer's retirement fund that prominently featured a hedging strategies offering. Since I could easily buy index funds on my own with taxable savings, I bought the asset class diversification story for that account, to the tune of roughly 20pct of my assets. This was before finding this site.

On digging into it in detail, I was surprised to read that fees were over 7pct per year. I knew fees were high but never imagined a 7pct drag. Needless to say it underperformed my personal accounts with their index offerings horribly last year and I closed the account.

Perhaps it was a lost opportunity, as I will never have access to such slick assets classes again, but my lingering feeling is that the choices reflected smart people wanting too hard to impress the world.
Leesbro63
Posts: 10581
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by Leesbro63 »

How is this hedge fund info actionable for us little investors? Or even if we are big-little investors (can meet hedge fund minimums)?
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52105
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by nisiprius »

Larry, I am puzzled. Why should I be interested in an expert's self-styled "tepid" defense of hedge funds? Are you saying that you now see a limited role for some kind of hedge fund investments in an ordinary investor's portfolio? In The Only Guide to Alternative Investments You'll Ever Need: The Good, the Flawed, the Bad, and the Ugly, you and Jared Kizer put them in the section of the book devoted to "the bad." Unless they've changed to "good," why would we even bother reading about them?
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Topic Author
larryswedroe
Posts: 16022
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
Location: St Louis MO

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by larryswedroe »

Nisprius, and other posters, you are all missing the key points

But before trying to clarify let me say 7% fees IMO is egregious but NO ONE forces anyone to pay them. I wouldn't, and neither should you. Just way too high a hurdle.

Now to address the points
First, as Asness notes you shouldn't compare the returns of a strategy that actually hedges something to that of the market----you don't need market returns to add value if you have low to negative correlations. In other words you have to consider how the addition of a fund/strategy to the portfolio impacts the risk/return of the entire portfolio. And not make the mistake of thinking in isolation, as way too many do.

Second, there are many examples today of what were hedge fund strategies that are now available to the public in the form of relatively low cost passively managed funds/etfs. For example, managed futures are trend following strategies. Individual investors can now access funds that incorporate momentum. AQR now offers hedge fund style funds like their multi-style premium fund (which I own) QSPIX, that has no exposure to beta at all while providing exposure to four different styles across multiple asset classes. Many of the strategies which use the marketing gimmick of "smart" beta are right from the world of hedge funds.

As another example we now use AQRs Large Core strategy for tax advantaged accounts (vs. DFA LV) and it incorporates three factors, value, profitability and momentum--what was once strategies found only in hedge fund land.

It's not that the strategies of hedge funds necessarily were bad--it's the active implementation (where it was done) and the high costs. Accessing different sources of returns (a typical hedge fund strategy) is a diversification strategy that can now be implemented by individual retail investors.

So yes HEDGE FUNDS are bad. But that doesn't mean the STRATEGIES that some employed are BAD. Just that the FEES they charge ARE bad. And that's the point Asness makes.
Larry
dad2000
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:04 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by dad2000 »

I consider myself a BH, but don't feel that I have to be 100% indexed (Right now I'm 95% if you exclude my iBonds).

I'm willing to consider any liquid, low-fee, well-diversified investment with decent risk adjusted returns. This is particularly the case if it has low or negative correlation to my existing investments. I don't think this is un-Bogleheadish.

Very few non-index funds meet this definition. I wouldn't mind owning QSPIX, but am not willing to pay more than 100bp for any fund (nor do I have an extra $5M on hand). The ER of my sliced/diced/tilted portfolio is 10bp.
M1garand30064
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:49 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by M1garand30064 »

larryswedroe wrote:Nisprius, and other posters, you are all missing the key points

But before trying to clarify let me say 7% fees IMO is egregious but NO ONE forces anyone to pay them. I wouldn't, and neither should you. Just way too high a hurdle.

Now to address the points
First, as Asness notes you shouldn't compare the returns of a strategy that actually hedges something to that of the market----you don't need market returns to add value if you have low to negative correlations. In other words you have to consider how the addition of a fund/strategy to the portfolio impacts the risk/return of the entire portfolio. And not make the mistake of thinking in isolation, as way too many do.

Second, there are many examples today of what were hedge fund strategies that are now available to the public in the form of relatively low cost passively managed funds/etfs. For example, managed futures are trend following strategies. Individual investors can now access funds that incorporate momentum. AQR now offers hedge fund style funds like their multi-style premium fund (which I own) QSPIX, that has no exposure to beta at all while providing exposure to four different styles across multiple asset classes. Many of the strategies which use the marketing gimmick of "smart" beta are right from the world of hedge funds.

As another example we now use AQRs Large Core strategy for tax advantaged accounts (vs. DFA LV) and it incorporates three factors, value, profitability and momentum--what was once strategies found only in hedge fund land.

It's not that the strategies of hedge funds necessarily were bad--it's the active implementation (where it was done) and the high costs. Accessing different sources of returns (a typical hedge fund strategy) is a diversification strategy that can now be implemented by individual retail investors.

So yes HEDGE FUNDS are bad. But that doesn't mean the STRATEGIES that some employed are BAD. Just that the FEES they charge ARE bad. And that's the point Asness makes.
Larry
I understand what you are saying, but i would have a hard time buying a fund that has an ER of 211 bp.
bradshaw1965
Posts: 826
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:36 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by bradshaw1965 »

It's good to see all of this exists to know that there is no way I could navigate it. I thought the arguments that tilting to small value wasn't really that more complicated then a TSM based approach were convincing and that maybe simplicity was overrated, but momentum, commodities, hedging, trend following, quality et. al just show that it's just a rabbit hole as far as my own personal investment approach.
jaab
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:52 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by jaab »

I agree that Asness has some good points, but his own (AQR) products are still way too expensive. For their equity funds only temporary fee waivers rescue the case for the next six months and the style premia fund's net fee goes through the roof already. Think of Schwab's RAFI ETFs instead with regular ERs of 0.32 (US Large + Small, Int. Large) and 0.48 (Int. Small, EM). 0.5 is what I would consider the upper limit for anything long only, including commodities. 0.5 only for illiquid niches, not for everything. Double that for a long/short fund and we are at 0.9-1.0 ER MAX.
Topic Author
larryswedroe
Posts: 16022
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
Location: St Louis MO

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by larryswedroe »

jaab
First, expensive should not be by PRICE< but VALUE added. Only fools look at the price of something without considering the value they get for it. I'm sure you don't always eat at the cheapest restaurant, buy the cheapest clothes, or car, and don't always go to the cheapest doctor. Unfortunately there's a good reason for the saying that millions of people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Second, the AQR large core fund has expenses in the low 40bp if memory serves. Now that is bit higher than other passive large value funds, but it even passes your 50bp test and it provides exposures to other factors (value, MOM and profitability) that make it a good value proposition in our view.

Re why costs should not be only consideration. Simple example, DFSVX is much more expensive than VISVX when looking at ER but it's cheap when look at returns, last 15 years outperforming by about 1.5%. Your rule of 50bp would have excluded DFSVX, so lose 1.5% a year in opportunity cost because of 2bp (fund has ER of 52).

Yes some of AQR's funds are more expensive. The QSPIX now has lower cost version in retirement plans of 1.4%. Now that is still relatively high. But the right way to think about that is that you are paying 70bp for the long positions and 70bp for the short positions (compared to long only funds which give you only half of the premium).

Bottom line is yes costs matter a lot, but they are not the only thing one should consider. It's also about ability to execute strategy, and how much exposure to factors you are getting, and how much diversification a fund provides.

Hope that helps
Larry
jaab
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:52 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by jaab »

Larry, there are only two problems:

In the past DFA (or the like) could overcompensate their fees with securities lending or de facto market making because there was less competition, in their respective niches. This is not the case anymore to this degree, with more players fishing in the same pond. I would surely not count on that DFA, AQR or other companies can "add value" as much as in the backtest or past live performance.

In the past factor premias have been high, again because of less interest/popularity. Now everyone and their brother has read Ilmanen, Lussier, Smart Beta marketing material & Co. Especially the part about no real risk stories for certain factors or when there seems to be at least a good behavioural chunk, as with value. More players fishing in the same pond.

Which gives us less expected "value added" and lower expected premia returns, but not lower fees so far. Also keep in mind that there ARE less expensive alternatives on the market now compared to AQR or DFA. And I don't buy the claim about "clear inferiority" of this alternatives. In former times with only, say, DFA funds as investable retail product one may have accepted their restrictive advisor-only model and high fees more easily. Same for AQR. Asness is good at self marketing. If he is worth the costs is another question clearly NOT yet answered.
Topic Author
larryswedroe
Posts: 16022
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
Location: St Louis MO

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by larryswedroe »

Jaab
First, yes there is more competition but that doesn't mean funds cannot add value. One of the funds we use for example has over 80% of their buys below the midpoint of bid-offer, as one example. And securities lending fees are down as rates are near zero. Not because there is supposedly more competition.
Second your point about premia and returns--those factors have been known for 20 years already. You add value by structure and how much you load, and how patient you trade, and incorporating other factors like momentum, etc. That hasn't changed. Now it may be that premiums may be lower due to "overgrazing" but for example Erb concluded that small value premium hasn't deteriorated while beta for sure has.
Third, as to lower fees. DFA and others like even AQR have persistently lowered fees and would expect that to continue simply due to market forces, competition. While there are less expensive alternatives IMO there are not ones that add more value, or we would use them and I would have my own funds invested in them. Have no reason not to. For same reason we don't use DFA exclusively--we have no incentive not to use the funds we believe add the most net value.
Fourth, even if purely behavioral doesn't mean it will go away after publication. After all MOM known for very long time and it hasn't gone away. Human behavior doesn't change easily and there are limits to arbitrage and costs and fear of margin and shorting that prevent mispricings from being arbed away.

Larry
AaCBrown
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:12 am

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by AaCBrown »

There is an important mathematical point about fees. I'm not saying anything about whether active management or hedge funds are good or bad, just that it's important to compare apples to apples.

An active stock picking mutual fund manager has a record of beating the market by 4% in half the previous years and losing to it by 2% the other half. He charges 50 basis points more than an index fund.

A hedge fund levers up the same strategy 5 to 1, going long the same stocks the mutual fund manager favors and shorting the stocks the mutual fund manager avoids. The fund beats t-bills by 20% in half the years and loses to them by 10% in the other half. It charges a 2% management fee and 20% of profits above t-bills.

The average fees of the hedge fund are much higher than the mutual fund manager. But the proper comparison is 100% of your equity allocation to the mutual fund manager, versus 10% of your allocation to the hedge fund manager. In the former case, you pay 50 basis points of your total equity allocation. In the latter, you pay 20 basis points of your total equity allocation in years the hedge fund loses money, and 56 basis points in up years. That's a lower expected effective fee, especially since the hedge fund charges based on high watermark, so you get the 20 basis point fee in some of your up years as well (unless the fund makes money every year, in which case you're happy anyway).

The same point applies to a lesser degree for average retail investors. A high-volatility fund that delivers pure market-neutral returns can have a higher fee than a lower-volatility fund or one with high correlation to the market, and still be the cheaper option in a portfolio context. It's the same as a car with a higher purchase price might have lower total outlays over a five-year ownership period if it costs less to fuel and service.

This is not intended as a defense of high fees in either mutual funds or hedge funds, nor of choosing investments based on past track record. It's just a point about comparing fees to what is delivered versus treating them as absolute numbers.
Leesbro63
Posts: 10581
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by Leesbro63 »

So Larry, is there some way we "average" Bogleheads can take advantage of these negative correlations without giving up long term return and/or paying fees that are too high? Or is this just an "in theory" type post that can't (yet) be acted upon by mere mortals?
Topic Author
larryswedroe
Posts: 16022
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
Location: St Louis MO

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by larryswedroe »

Leesbro
Already gave you many examples. There are funds now that provide access to strategies or sources of returns long restricted to hedge fund land, like MOM. There are ETFs that access it. There are many funds that incorporate at least screens if not direct exposure. There are long short funds that have no exposure to beta but access other sources. There are funds that access profitability premium and other factors. What you need to decide is what factors in the factor zoo are worth going after, which funds are most efficient at getting exposure to the factors and how much exposure they provide, and have they experience that gives you confidence they can execute well, especially in higher turnover strategies like momentum or long short.
And it's not just DFA or Bridgeway but now AQR and many others.

Larry
Louis Winthorpe III
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:17 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by Louis Winthorpe III »

larryswedroe wrote: Yes some of AQR's funds are more expensive. The QSPIX now has lower cost version in retirement plans of 1.4%. Now that is still relatively high. But the right way to think about that is that you are paying 70bp for the long positions and 70bp for the short positions (compared to long only funds which give you only half of the premium).
I'm not commenting for or against QSPIX, but I want to comment on the rationale above regarding AQR's fees. I don't believe it's accurate to say we should think about a 1.4% expense ratio as 70 bps for the long positions and 70 bps for the short positions. If QSPIX is market neutral, and the longs and shorts both represent half the portfolio, then you're paying 140 bps for the longs and 140 bps for the shorts. Otherwise, 70 bps for one half plus 70 bps for the other half would equal 70 bps for the entire portfolio. It just sounds like mental gymnastics to pretend that the fund is two moderately-priced portfolios.

The right way to think about it is the most direct: It's a fund with a 140 bps expense ratio that adds something unique that I don't have elsewhere in my portfolio. Then you ask whether the diversification benefits are worth 140 bps.

As to whether QSPIX is a good addition, it might be but I'd want to see more performance history first. Isn't it only about a year old?
Angst
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:31 am

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by Angst »

I think it's a comparison btw:

1) Taking $1,000, getting $1,000 worth exposure to two different forms of factors for a cost of $1000 x 1.4% = $14 vs.
2) Taking $2,000, getting $1,000 worth exposure to two different forms of factors for a cost of ($1000 x 0.7%) x2 = $14.

The first choice requires committing half the amount of money to get the same net factor exposure for your portfolio.

Still, whether this factor exposure math is truly or effectively accurate, let alone holds up over time, might be a subject of concern to potential investors.
Leesbro63
Posts: 10581
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by Leesbro63 »

I admit I don't really understand all this. But it sounds like "geeks bearing formulas".
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52105
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by nisiprius »

larryswedroe wrote:...you don't need market returns to add value if you have low to negative correlations...
Negative correlations are truly magic, because it would mean one asset is actually canceling out the the risk of another, and in theory such an asset can indeed improve a portfolio even if the asset has zero return.

But I am not convinced that there are any (long-only) asset pairs that are intrinsically negatively correlated... robustly, meaningfully, over the long term--in the real world. Certainly an asset can have a negative correlation with another for, say, five years, just as the U.S. stock market can average 20% returns annually for five years. But the U.S. stock market doesn't do that in the long run. If someone claims to be able to predict when a pair of assets will have negative correlation, that's market timing, only with correlation instead of return.

Can anyone give me an example of a pair of (long-only) assets that have demonstrated a meaningful negative correlation over long periods of time? I note, for example, that the correlation between long-term government bonds and large company stocks (S&P 500 and predecessors) was +0.03 from 1926-2009 according to the SBBI 2010 Classic Yearbook. +0.74 between Fama-French Large Growth stocks and Fama-French Small Value Stocks, p. 103.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Louis Winthorpe III
Posts: 780
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:17 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by Louis Winthorpe III »

Angst wrote:I think it's a comparison btw:

1) Taking $1,000, getting $1,000 worth exposure to two different forms of factors for a cost of $1000 x 1.4% = $14 vs.
2) Taking $2,000, getting $1,000 worth exposure to two different forms of factors for a cost of ($1000 x 0.7%) x2 = $14.
I'm confused by that. You're investing $1,000 and paying $14. I can see the argument that you're getting $500 exposure to one factor and $500 to another, all for $14. I can't see how you're getting $2,000 of factor exposure when you're only investing $1,000.
Topic Author
larryswedroe
Posts: 16022
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
Location: St Louis MO

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by larryswedroe »

Few things
Nisiprius,
There is a very strong statistically significant negative correlation between value and momentum. And it is also quite logical. And there is also logically negative correlation between CCF and nominal bonds. So there's at least two. There are others that aren't as strongly negative but still negative., And you don't need negative correlation to have a benefit.

Louis
If you have long only portfolio that invests 1,000, you get the exposure to about half the factor. Now if have a long portfolio that invests 1,000 and a short portfolio that also has 1,000 in short position you get the other half of the factor and you now have two 1,000 investments but paid 1.4% on only the 1,000. So that's 70bp per 1,000 in exposure and you get the full exposure to the factor.

Larry
User avatar
Yesterdaysnews
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 1:25 pm
Location: Sugar Land, TX

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by Yesterdaysnews »

I hold 50% of my portfolio in index funds at Vanguard and 50% in private equity. Sort if the two different extremes in retail investing. This produces good returns every year in a more steady fashion.

Primary home is paid off also which sort of functions as a sizable bond holding.
Topic Author
larryswedroe
Posts: 16022
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
Location: St Louis MO

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by larryswedroe »

Yesterday
In 2008 private equity produced very large losses. Also there is much phony reporting in private equity because of failure to mark to market appropriately securities that are illiquid. Depending on the study the evidence is that private equity has performed about same as S&P or beaten it by about 2% or so (depends on time period). But it has significantly underperformed more similarly risky and publicly available small value stocks.
Larry
daffyd
Posts: 199
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by daffyd »

I was wondering, what assumptions/empirical regularities do we rely on when constructing a risk parity portfolio?

Do we assume volatilities and correlations are consistent with past experience?
We definitely don't need absolute returns to be consistent (e.g. if every asset class returns 3% less than in the past but correlate as in the past the strategy will be fine).
Do we need relative expected returns to be the same as in the past (e.g. equity, term, value, carry, etc. premia)?
For the latter question I'm just noticing that many risk-parity-like portfolios are heavy on longer-term (10+ year) treasuries. We certainly can't get the returns over the past twenty years or so which were driven by larger falls in nominal interest rates than are mechanically possible now. We can back those out - if we remove them are expected term premia sufficient?

I'm still working my way through Ilmanen so expect I'll figure this out in due course but it would be good to get a teaser from someone already across it.

e.g. here are unlevered risk parity portfolios by Meb Faber and Stronghold Financial
Risk Parity Portfolio (Unlevered, Faber PPT)
7.5% US Stocks
7.5% Foreign Stocks
35% US 10 Year Bonds
35% Corporate Bonds
5% GSCI
5% Gold
5% Real Estate
- See more at: http://mebfaber.com/2013/07/31/asset-al ... 0b009.dpuf

All Seasons allocation (Stronghold Financial/Dalio of Bridgewater, soon to be popularised by Tony Robbins)
Long Gov Bond 40.00%
Intermediate Gov Bond 15.00%
Diversified Commodity 7.50%
Gold 7.50%
US Large Cap 12.50%
US Mid Cap 5.50%
US Small Cap 3.00%
International Stock 6.00%
Emerging Market Stock 3.00%
- See more at: http://mebfaber.com/2014/10/24/the-all- ... ulxd1.dpuf
Topic Author
larryswedroe
Posts: 16022
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
Location: St Louis MO

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by larryswedroe »

Daffy
fwiw, I am not fan of "risk parity" though I am fan of the basic idea of diversifying the sources of returns much more than typical portfolios accomplish. And that's the basic idea behind risk parity. Each person should decide for themselves which factors they want exposure to and how much of that exposure they want. So concept of risk parity I believe is good, just not believing there is one right portfolio and it's risk parity
Larry
jdb
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:21 pm

Re: new interesting piece by Asness on hedge funds

Post by jdb »

Thanks Larry, interesting article. Note that he used the word disappointing or disappointment at least five times in two paragraphs describing hedge fund performance last year. That kind of sums it up for me. With all due respect I like your commentary on bonds but prefer Taylor and Nisprius and the like commentary on equity index investing.
Post Reply