Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
- GreatOdinsRaven
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:47 pm
Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Another great WSJ article from Jason Zweig- this time on DFA
"Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat"
Usual protocol.
GOR
"Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat"
Usual protocol.
GOR
"The greatest enemies of the equity investor are expenses and emotions." -John C. Bogle, Little Book of Common Sense Investing. |
|
"Winter is coming." Lord Eddard Stark.
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
No link so I'll add what I posted and then deleted when I saw you beat me!
MARKETS THE PASSIVISTS
Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Mutual-fund company DFA adds nearly $2 billion in net assets per month at a time when investors are fleeing many other firms
http://on.wsj.com/2dSp1sN
MARKETS THE PASSIVISTS
Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Mutual-fund company DFA adds nearly $2 billion in net assets per month at a time when investors are fleeing many other firms
http://on.wsj.com/2dSp1sN
The fastest-growing major mutual-fund company in the U.S. isn’t strictly an active or passive investor. It’s both.
Dimensional Fund Advisors LP, or DFA, is the sixth-largest mutual-fund manager, up from eighth a year ago, according to Morningstar Inc., adding nearly $2 billion in net assets per month at a time when investors are fleeing many other firms.
DFA, whose founders and advisers include leading purveyors of efficient-market theory, is built on the bedrock belief that active management practiced by traditional stock pickers is futile, if not an absurdity. DFA’s founders are pioneers of index funds. But these men concluded long ago that investors who respected efficient markets could nevertheless achieve better returns than plain index funds deliver.
“We think indexing is too mechanical,” co-founder David Booth said in a recent interview. “A little bit of judgment can make a difference.”
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
- GreatOdinsRaven
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:47 pm
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
I wasn't sure if I should post the link or just the title. My bad.
Thanks for including it.
GOR
Thanks for including it.
GOR
"The greatest enemies of the equity investor are expenses and emotions." -John C. Bogle, Little Book of Common Sense Investing. |
|
"Winter is coming." Lord Eddard Stark.
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
matjen, I was ready to post the same quote you did--
Paul
I'm not buying. This just leaves a bad taste. Not a typical Zweig article. As far as DFA growth goes, I cannot help wondering if the Bogleheads' forum has contributed to this in some small way. Also goes for the recent rise in indexing.DFA, whose founders and advisers include leading purveyors of efficient-market theory, is built on the bedrock belief that active management practiced by traditional stock pickers is futile, if not an absurdity. DFA’s founders are pioneers of index funds. But these men concluded long ago that investors who respected efficient markets could nevertheless achieve better returns than plain index funds deliver
Paul
When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm a little more blunt than the average boglehead because I don't know who to give proper respect to. But that article just reads like junk to me.
I mean if anything, it looks like the proper conclusion I should be drawing is
DFA is good for america because
“I love that [Mr. Booth and DFA] have been true to their economic roots and have grown the company in a gigantic way without ever veering from their beliefs and theories of investing,” he wrote.
I sure need some DFA in my life!
Is that the proper conclusion I should be drawing?
I mean if anything, it looks like the proper conclusion I should be drawing is
DFA is good for america because
“I love that [Mr. Booth and DFA] have been true to their economic roots and have grown the company in a gigantic way without ever veering from their beliefs and theories of investing,” he wrote.
I sure need some DFA in my life!
Is that the proper conclusion I should be drawing?
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
.
If I recall it was not long ago that DFA [at least David Booth] set a target of $500 billion in AUM – this seemed to have spawned new products and expansion into defined contribution services. I see they are close to reaching it at $445 billion.** At some point size will become an issue. As the article notes they “already hold at least 5% of the total shares outstanding of 545 US listed companies” – the higher the share the larger the market impact of any rebalancing trades.
We are often told DFAs implementation jujutsu can overcame all of this, and perhaps this is partly true. In addition, we are also told by some that DFAs form of jujutsu even adds significant ‘alpha’ beyond factor exposure! The evidence shows this is more marketing than factual. DFA did (and perhaps still does) have an edge in international and emerging markets but there are also now more passive alternatives in these areas.
“Over the long-term what matters is factor exposure and expense”. For all but the most extreme tilts, a desired portfolio factor exposure can be largely achieved with non-DFA funds and likely at lower total cost. Personally I use DFA funds in 529, but non-DFA funds for retirement. In the grander scheme of things, consistent savings and staying the course are a much larger determinant of investment success than the use of DFA or non-DFA funds to achieve portfolio factor load targets.
** As I understand Arnold Schwarzenegger (quoted in the article) is part owner of DFA, so its not surprising that he is happy with its growth.
Robert
.
If I recall it was not long ago that DFA [at least David Booth] set a target of $500 billion in AUM – this seemed to have spawned new products and expansion into defined contribution services. I see they are close to reaching it at $445 billion.** At some point size will become an issue. As the article notes they “already hold at least 5% of the total shares outstanding of 545 US listed companies” – the higher the share the larger the market impact of any rebalancing trades.
We are often told DFAs implementation jujutsu can overcame all of this, and perhaps this is partly true. In addition, we are also told by some that DFAs form of jujutsu even adds significant ‘alpha’ beyond factor exposure! The evidence shows this is more marketing than factual. DFA did (and perhaps still does) have an edge in international and emerging markets but there are also now more passive alternatives in these areas.
“Over the long-term what matters is factor exposure and expense”. For all but the most extreme tilts, a desired portfolio factor exposure can be largely achieved with non-DFA funds and likely at lower total cost. Personally I use DFA funds in 529, but non-DFA funds for retirement. In the grander scheme of things, consistent savings and staying the course are a much larger determinant of investment success than the use of DFA or non-DFA funds to achieve portfolio factor load targets.
** As I understand Arnold Schwarzenegger (quoted in the article) is part owner of DFA, so its not surprising that he is happy with its growth.
Robert
.
- GreatOdinsRaven
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:47 pm
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Amen, brother.Robert T wrote:.
In the grander scheme of things, consistent savings and staying the course are a much larger determinant of investment success than the use of DFA or non-DFA funds to achieve portfolio factor load targets.
I always enjoy your insight, Robert T.
Full disclosure- I have some DFA in a 401(k), but after attending Bogleheads 2016 I'm an even bigger Vanguard fanboy.
"The greatest enemies of the equity investor are expenses and emotions." -John C. Bogle, Little Book of Common Sense Investing. |
|
"Winter is coming." Lord Eddard Stark.
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Of course I agree. The one thing I will say about DFA and what really attracted me to them was that it is easier to get the loads with DFA funds and not have to worry about them as much. The odds of funds shutting down or changing are slim to none and there are funds that make it very easy since they are balanced across the US market and the International market. For someone like Robert T. this may be inconsequential but for all the folks who admire the three-fund you can get to that type of simplicity AND have Robert T. or Swedroe recommended factor loads.Robert T wrote:.
In the grander scheme of things, consistent savings and staying the course are a much larger determinant of investment success than the use of DFA or non-DFA funds to achieve portfolio factor load targets.
So for instance, I think you are getting near your favored loadings Robert T. with just two DFA funds. No fuss, no muss, hardly any rebalancing necessary other than at the very top level. Not sure you can do that anywhere else. Makes it much easier for dopes like me.
(DWUSX) WORLD EX US TARGETED VALUE PORTFOLIO
(DFVEX) US VECTOR EQUITY PORTFOLIO
Just add the Intermediate Term Treasury Bond fund of your choice. DFAs or iShares or Vanguard or Schwab, etc.
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
-
- Posts: 5561
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:21 pm
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
I am not sure I agree with the statement that all that matters is factor exposure and cost. I think cost per unit factor exposure is relevant. Funds that have deeper factor exposure allow the investor to achieve desired portfolio tilts with less market risk, resulting in a more efficient portfolio. Moreover, less of the more expensive tilt fund is required to achieve ones goal exposure when the tilt fund has deeper factor exposure. I'm sure this is true when comparing Vanguard to DFA. It definitely needs to be evaluated when comparing the various ETFs to DFA funds.
Dave
Dave
-
- Posts: 16022
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
- Location: St Louis MO
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Dave, In fact Jared Kizer and Sean Grover, my colleagues, have a new paper in the JPM on the very subject of expense per unit of factor exposure.
Also don't forget the advantages of CORE portfolios which reduce trading costs and minimize, eliminate, the need to rebalance with your own money.
Note we are not exclusive users of DFA, using funds from AQR, Bridgeway, and Stone Ridge as well
Larry
Also don't forget the advantages of CORE portfolios which reduce trading costs and minimize, eliminate, the need to rebalance with your own money.
Note we are not exclusive users of DFA, using funds from AQR, Bridgeway, and Stone Ridge as well
Larry
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
.
Few thoughts:
1. Cost per unit of factor exposure: That was my point in the earlier post. More concretely, I have been tracking two factor matched portfolios in M* since 11/6/08 - a DFA, largely tax-managed funds, portfolio and a non-DFA, largely ETF, portfolio. These portfolios had the same ex-ante estimated factor exposure when set up in 2008. The non-DFA portfolio has a 0.13% lower expense ratio, and a 0.12% lower 5-yr tax-cost ratio (according to M*) for a 0.25% lower combined cost. Any advisor fee for DFA fund access + the $25 cost per trade of DFA funds (as I understand) would need to be added to the total cost of owning DFA funds. The annualized return of the non-DFA, largely ETF, portfolio since 11/6/08 has been 0.3% higher (10.1% vs. 9.8%). This is not a back-test as the portfolios were both set up in 2008. Would just note that these are not portfolios with extreme factor tilts (they have size and value load targets of 0.2/0.4). The more extreme the desired portfolio factor tilts, the more difficult it is to achieve these with non-DFA funds relative to DFA funds.
2. There are "non-factor" risks to both approaches. (i) there can be changes in the long-term factor exposure of the portfolios due to changes to the index tracked by the funds. If anything, over this period there have been more changes to the factor exposure of the DFA portfolio with the addition of profitability in its stock screening process - so the two portfolios may now not be as exactly factor matched as in 2008; (ii) the risk of fund closures is higher with the non-DFA portfolio, but the risk of "advisors leaving" (e.g. Rick leaving Portfolio Solutions) is higher with DFA portfolios. Obviously the associated risks of this is lower with firms like Larry's with a deeper bench.
DFA has great products, and the core/vector funds can add simplicity (at the expense of less control over specific factor exposures), but expectations of significant 'alpha' above a factor matched non-DFA portfolio may lead to disappointment.
IMO, its good to see advisors continually assessing new products coming to market and adapting as needed. I recall these relevant extracts from James Montier's book on Behavioral Investing
Robert
.
Few thoughts:
1. Cost per unit of factor exposure: That was my point in the earlier post. More concretely, I have been tracking two factor matched portfolios in M* since 11/6/08 - a DFA, largely tax-managed funds, portfolio and a non-DFA, largely ETF, portfolio. These portfolios had the same ex-ante estimated factor exposure when set up in 2008. The non-DFA portfolio has a 0.13% lower expense ratio, and a 0.12% lower 5-yr tax-cost ratio (according to M*) for a 0.25% lower combined cost. Any advisor fee for DFA fund access + the $25 cost per trade of DFA funds (as I understand) would need to be added to the total cost of owning DFA funds. The annualized return of the non-DFA, largely ETF, portfolio since 11/6/08 has been 0.3% higher (10.1% vs. 9.8%). This is not a back-test as the portfolios were both set up in 2008. Would just note that these are not portfolios with extreme factor tilts (they have size and value load targets of 0.2/0.4). The more extreme the desired portfolio factor tilts, the more difficult it is to achieve these with non-DFA funds relative to DFA funds.
2. There are "non-factor" risks to both approaches. (i) there can be changes in the long-term factor exposure of the portfolios due to changes to the index tracked by the funds. If anything, over this period there have been more changes to the factor exposure of the DFA portfolio with the addition of profitability in its stock screening process - so the two portfolios may now not be as exactly factor matched as in 2008; (ii) the risk of fund closures is higher with the non-DFA portfolio, but the risk of "advisors leaving" (e.g. Rick leaving Portfolio Solutions) is higher with DFA portfolios. Obviously the associated risks of this is lower with firms like Larry's with a deeper bench.
DFA has great products, and the core/vector funds can add simplicity (at the expense of less control over specific factor exposures), but expectations of significant 'alpha' above a factor matched non-DFA portfolio may lead to disappointment.
IMO, its good to see advisors continually assessing new products coming to market and adapting as needed. I recall these relevant extracts from James Montier's book on Behavioral Investing
A challenge to us all."… we are too busy looking for information that confirms our hypothesis .... The only way to test a hypothesis is to look for information that disagrees with it - a process known as falsification [Karl Popper]."
"… In fact it transpires that we are twice as likely to look for information that agrees with us than we are to seek out disconfirming evidence. ... the more sure people were that they had the correct view, they distorted new evidence to suit their existing preference, which in turn made them even more confident."
"... we need to learn to look for evidence that would prove our analysis wrong."
Robert
.
-
- Posts: 5561
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:21 pm
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Thanks for your response Robert,
Larry alluded to it in his prior response to me, but thought I would say it explicitly for the whole crowd here. The best way to create a tilted portfolio with DFA is to use cheaper core funds as the dominant component and then add on the more expensive asset class funds to obtain the tilt the individual is looking for. The core funds are structured as whole market funds with different tilts towards small and value. Not only are the core funds cheaper, they also minimize rebalancing costs.
Dave
Larry alluded to it in his prior response to me, but thought I would say it explicitly for the whole crowd here. The best way to create a tilted portfolio with DFA is to use cheaper core funds as the dominant component and then add on the more expensive asset class funds to obtain the tilt the individual is looking for. The core funds are structured as whole market funds with different tilts towards small and value. Not only are the core funds cheaper, they also minimize rebalancing costs.
Dave
-
- Posts: 16022
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
- Location: St Louis MO
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
dave
And the core funds also reduce internal trading costs as stocks migrate across asset classes and that also saves taxes
Larry
And the core funds also reduce internal trading costs as stocks migrate across asset classes and that also saves taxes
Larry
- GreatOdinsRaven
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:47 pm
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Robert T,
Care to comment on the components of these ex ante sample portfolios or provide a link to M*? Are they similar to the portfolios we talked about in the past on other threads (can't seem to find them this morning...)?
Thanks,
GOR
Care to comment on the components of these ex ante sample portfolios or provide a link to M*? Are they similar to the portfolios we talked about in the past on other threads (can't seem to find them this morning...)?
Thanks,
GOR
"The greatest enemies of the equity investor are expenses and emotions." -John C. Bogle, Little Book of Common Sense Investing. |
|
"Winter is coming." Lord Eddard Stark.
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Here are Robert T.'s portfolios: http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSoc ... &viewTab=6GreatOdinsRaven wrote:Robert T,
Care to comment on the components of these ex ante sample portfolios or provide a link to M*? Are they similar to the portfolios we talked about in the past on other threads (can't seem to find them this morning...)?
Thanks,
GOR
Here is the ETF portfolio that can match anything from the fancy pants companies like DFA or AQR with similar factor loadings IMO (I agree with Robert T. on this point): http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSoc ... C1FF7784FC
It has 8 funds. My suggested portfolio above has 3 funds and is within spitting distance (if good at spitting ). According to portfolio visualizer DWUSX (covering International and Emerging) has a .2 size and .37 value load while DFVEX (covering US) has .45 size and .28 value. Robert T. shoots for .2 and .4*
*Robert T. please be gentle with me if I am too loose with the facts here.
Last edited by matjen on Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:53 am, edited 4 times in total.
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
.
I understand the theory and intuition of the core/vector concept - lower internal trading costs, lower taxes, cheaper. The question is what is the magnitude of these effects?
Here an (evidence-based) example: Using the time period from Jan. 2007 to August 2016, the market, size, and value loads of the DFA Vector portfolio could be matched by a portfolio comprising 21% DFA US Large Company, 11% DFA Tax-Managed US Marketwide Value, and 68% DFA Tax-managed US Targeted Value. Both portfolios had market, size, and value loads of 1.06, 0.45, and 0.29 over this period. https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fac ... ssetType=1
Annualized returns (%) / SD / Sharpe Ratio over same period https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion4_2=68
So why the 0.14% higher return of the DFA component portfolio in the above example? Perhaps its due to the rebalancing return Bernstein talks about. Here's an extract from his book on Rational Expectations.
.
I understand the theory and intuition of the core/vector concept - lower internal trading costs, lower taxes, cheaper. The question is what is the magnitude of these effects?
Here an (evidence-based) example: Using the time period from Jan. 2007 to August 2016, the market, size, and value loads of the DFA Vector portfolio could be matched by a portfolio comprising 21% DFA US Large Company, 11% DFA Tax-Managed US Marketwide Value, and 68% DFA Tax-managed US Targeted Value. Both portfolios had market, size, and value loads of 1.06, 0.45, and 0.29 over this period. https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fac ... ssetType=1
Annualized returns (%) / SD / Sharpe Ratio over same period https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion4_2=68
- DFA Vector = 5.83% / 19.63 / 0.36
DFA Component = 5.97% / 19.75 / 0.36
So why the 0.14% higher return of the DFA component portfolio in the above example? Perhaps its due to the rebalancing return Bernstein talks about. Here's an extract from his book on Rational Expectations.
- "...tilt is tilt, and these core fund have a small transactional advantage over a component approach. This is because fewer companies have to be bought and sold as they cross the borders between the older four-corner pigeonholes. This small advantage has to be weighed against the loss of control over the fine-tuning of value/small loadings and of the benefit of rebalancing with the four corners."
.
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Another perhaps easier presentation (from viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7353).GreatOdinsRaven wrote:Robert T,
Care to comment on the components of these ex ante sample portfolios or provide a link to M*? Are they similar to the portfolios we talked about in the past on other threads (can't seem to find them this morning...)?
Thanks,
GOR
Robert
.
- GreatOdinsRaven
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:47 pm
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Robert T,
Thank you.
Thank you.
"The greatest enemies of the equity investor are expenses and emotions." -John C. Bogle, Little Book of Common Sense Investing. |
|
"Winter is coming." Lord Eddard Stark.
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion18_3=25
The link includes the more specific allocations. The first two portfolios were factor matched at inception in 2008 - and so far very little difference in return - exactly as the Fama-French research implies (no significant alpha beyond factor exposure). This ignores any advisor fees to access DFA funds. As indicated, with changes in the DFA screening methodology to include profitability, these may now not be as closely factor matched as in 2008. The third portfolio has a larger size tilt (so not factor matched), but over this period there was not much difference in return.
Select portfolio factor load targets, construct a portfolio to achieve these at lowest cost. Stay the course and ignore the noise (helped by establishing portfolio factor load targets to anchor decisions in the first place). Most backtested comparisons of tilted portfolios are not factor matched where it is easy, ex-post, to construct one portfolio to outperform another based on difference in factor loads. IMO this only adds noise to the investment decision process. Anchor the process with portfolio factor load targets, then focus on achieving these at lowest cost.
Robert
.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion18_3=25
The link includes the more specific allocations. The first two portfolios were factor matched at inception in 2008 - and so far very little difference in return - exactly as the Fama-French research implies (no significant alpha beyond factor exposure). This ignores any advisor fees to access DFA funds. As indicated, with changes in the DFA screening methodology to include profitability, these may now not be as closely factor matched as in 2008. The third portfolio has a larger size tilt (so not factor matched), but over this period there was not much difference in return.
Select portfolio factor load targets, construct a portfolio to achieve these at lowest cost. Stay the course and ignore the noise (helped by establishing portfolio factor load targets to anchor decisions in the first place). Most backtested comparisons of tilted portfolios are not factor matched where it is easy, ex-post, to construct one portfolio to outperform another based on difference in factor loads. IMO this only adds noise to the investment decision process. Anchor the process with portfolio factor load targets, then focus on achieving these at lowest cost.
Robert
.
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Thank you Robert T. Another gem of a post.
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
- Sunny Sarkar
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:02 am
- Location: Flower Mound, TX
- Contact:
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
This is precisely the reason I decided not to "tilt". My fear is I would "fall" when tracking error goes negative - I'd second guess the heck out of myself. If I've learned anything from 15 years of being a Boglehead, it's this: portfolio engineering is overrated, avoiding behavioral mistakes is where the money is.Robert T wrote:In the grander scheme of things, consistent savings and staying the course are a much larger determinant of investment success than the use of DFA or non-DFA funds to achieve portfolio factor load targets.
"Buy-and-hold, long-term, all-market-index strategies, implemented at rock-bottom cost, are the surest of all routes to the accumulation of wealth" - John C. Bogle
-
- Posts: 5561
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:21 pm
Re: Latest Jason Zweig article on DFA: Making Billions With One Belief: The Markets Can’t Be Beat
Avoiding behavioral mistakes was one reason I ultimately decided to go with an advisor. Admittedly, when I chose an advisor I was mainly focused on DFA access, but I also knew a screen protecting myself from me was another benefit. I know Larry has said that avoiding one behavioral error can overcome years of AUM fees.Sunny Sarkar wrote:Robert T wrote:If I've learned anything from 15 years of being a Boglehead, it's this: portfolio engineering is overrated, avoiding behavioral mistakes is where the money is.
Dave