How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
User avatar
Tyler Aspect
Posts: 1085
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:27 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by Tyler Aspect » Thu May 10, 2018 12:53 pm

You can use the portfolio backtest feature of PortfolioVisualizer to compare portfolio 1 (85% stock / 15% bond) versus portfolio 2 (70% stock / 30% bond). The more conservative portfolio had a slightly less draw-down during the last recession, but the average annual return was slightly less as well.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=30
Past result does not predict future performance. Mentioned investments may lose money. Contents are presented "AS IS" and any implied suitability for a particular purpose are disclaimed.

CnC
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 12:41 pm

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by CnC » Thu May 10, 2018 1:00 pm

Vulcan wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 12:27 pm
CnC wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 11:03 am
dziuniek wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 10:48 am
I wouldn't assume that stocks will beat bonds or the next 10 years or even 20.

Didn't we just recently finish a 30year period where bonds beat stocks ?
No we most certainly didn't.
viewtopic.php?t=88293#p1268227

That's handing out false information. It is just the sp500 not the sp500 + dividends. There is a big difference between the two.

At least read the story you linked. If you torture the data enough it will tell you anything.

A certain type of risky bond was able to achieve according to some sources 11% average over 30 years. That doesn't mean bonds beat stocks. A perfect storm of very high inflation followed by very low inflation coupled with choosing an end point at a stock vally is not an accurate picture.


I'm sure you could take out bonds from Venezuela right now for some great interest rates if you wanted to take the risk.

User avatar
Vulcan
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:43 pm

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by Vulcan » Thu May 10, 2018 3:41 pm

CnC wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 1:00 pm
Vulcan wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 12:27 pm
CnC wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 11:03 am
dziuniek wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 10:48 am
I wouldn't assume that stocks will beat bonds or the next 10 years or even 20.

Didn't we just recently finish a 30year period where bonds beat stocks ?
No we most certainly didn't.
viewtopic.php?t=88293#p1268227
That's handing out false information. It is just the sp500 not the sp500 + dividends. There is a big difference between the two.

At least read the story you linked. If you torture the data enough it will tell you anything.
I believe dividends were included, and nisiprius' post I linked is excellent as always.

User avatar
Vulcan
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:43 pm

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by Vulcan » Thu May 10, 2018 4:24 pm

CnC wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 1:00 pm
That's handing out false information. It is just the sp500 not the sp500 + dividends. There is a big difference between the two.

At least read the story you linked. If you torture the data enough it will tell you anything.

A certain type of risky bond was able to achieve according to some sources 11% average over 30 years. That doesn't mean bonds beat stocks. A perfect storm of very high inflation followed by very low inflation coupled with choosing an end point at a stock vally is not an accurate picture.

I'm sure you could take out bonds from Venezuela right now for some great interest rates if you wanted to take the risk.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/well- ... ear-market
Bonds beat stocks by factor of 11 times from 1981 to 2009

Yes, and you'd have been 11 times richer. Listen closely to Shilling's analysis of the past 28 years. In his Insight newsletter he compares the performance of the S&P 500 stock index to the bond market. First he focuses on his "all-time favorite graph" comparing "the results from investing $100 in a 25-year zero-coupon Treasury bond at its yield high (and price low) in October 1981, and rolling it into another 25-year Treasury annually to maintain that 25-year maturity."

His bottom line: "On March 31, 2009, that $100 was worth $16,656 with a compound annual return of 20.4%. In contrast, $100 invested in the S&P 500 at its low in July 1982 was worth $1,502 last month for a 10.7% annual return including dividend reinvestment. So Treasurys outperformed stocks by 11.1 times."

FOGU
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:41 pm

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by FOGU » Thu May 10, 2018 6:27 pm

siamond wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 12:16 pm
FOGU wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:40 pm
As a quantitative matter, how much difference would it really make if I were 70/30 instead of 85/15?
OP, if you're minimally conversant with spreadsheets, I would suggest that you play around with the Simba backtesting spreadsheet. This will allow you to model various Asset Allocations and see how they performed in the past. Multiple metrics are automatically calculated, capturing some facets of risk. This isn't to say that the future will not be different (it will!), but well, at least this should give you some factual and quantifiable basis to reflect upon.

As various posters alluded to, defining 'risk' is actually tricky and is a personal assessment for sure. Personally, I try to advise people to think about their top-3 high-level financial goals, and their top-3 financial fears. Which isn't an easy exercise, actually. Then and only then can you try to match various metrics to your own perception of risk & reward. Just don't forget that the lack of reward is a very significant risk in itself - something many people seem to forget.
I don't think I understand the outputs. I put in the data for allocation and everything else and it seems every simulation crashes to zero. Maybe I'm reading wrong. Is there a thread that will explain better the outputs of this spreadsheet. Thank you very much.
~ Don't just do something. Sit there. ~

User avatar
siamond
Posts: 4154
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:50 am

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by siamond » Thu May 10, 2018 7:32 pm

FOGU wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 6:27 pm
I don't think I understand the outputs. I put in the data for allocation and everything else and it seems every simulation crashes to zero. Maybe I'm reading wrong. Is there a thread that will explain better the outputs of this spreadsheet. Thank you very much.
Please check carefully the README tab for instructions. The glossary provides pointers to Web/Wiki pages explaining the various metrics. Any question, please ask on this thread.

dziuniek
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:54 pm
Location: Corrupticut

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by dziuniek » Thu May 10, 2018 9:30 pm

CnC wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 11:03 am
dziuniek wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 10:48 am
I wouldn't assume that stocks will beat bonds or the next 10 years or even 20.

Didn't we just recently finish a 30year period where bonds beat stocks ?
No we most certainly didn't.

Stocks returned an annual return of 9.678% over the last 30 years. Please show me where bonds have averaged +9% over the last 30.


If you try to pick numbers to make the stock market look bad and choose 30 years ending in the 2007 recession you actually get greater than 10% annual growth. You are going to have to do some serious mathematical gymnastics to get bonds to beat stocks over 10+ years.
Sure. Here's some sources/links.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bonds-beat ... s-so-what/

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... er-all.asp

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/bonds-beat- ... -8791.html


You never know... expected return for stocks is higher- that doesn't mean it might happen in our lifetimes. Just because the rates are trending up and bonds are taking a bit of a beating does not mean that can't reverse right before one retires.

Holding a bit of everything can be prudent.

Yes, it is gymnastics to an extent. Then again, those are long periods of time, for some half their life and most of their investing life.

Cool beans?

dziuniek
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:54 pm
Location: Corrupticut

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by dziuniek » Thu May 10, 2018 9:47 pm

+1

That's a great thread.

TheBogleWay
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:04 pm

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by TheBogleWay » Fri May 11, 2018 2:13 am

random_walker_77 wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 9:03 am

A 50% loss in stocks is often used for planning purposes, but don't confuse that for worst case. In the great depression, the market dropped nearly 90% peak to trough over 3 years...

http://thegreatdepressioncauses.com/fac ... ck-market/
Can somebody explain to a rookie why I'm seeing contradicting data?

The above link and post says there has been a 90% drop.

The following link says the worst drop for the stock market starting before the great depression was 43.1%.

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insigh ... llocations

Which is it, or what am I not understanding?

dbr
Posts: 27207
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by dbr » Fri May 11, 2018 8:41 am

TheBogleWay wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 2:13 am
random_walker_77 wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 9:03 am

A 50% loss in stocks is often used for planning purposes, but don't confuse that for worst case. In the great depression, the market dropped nearly 90% peak to trough over 3 years...

http://thegreatdepressioncauses.com/fac ... ck-market/
Can somebody explain to a rookie why I'm seeing contradicting data?

The above link and post says there has been a 90% drop.

The following link says the worst drop for the stock market starting before the great depression was 43.1%.

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insigh ... llocations

Which is it, or what am I not understanding?
I haven't looked up the data, but drop is an undefined term. Vanguard quotes drops in any single calendar year. Actual stock market declines can occur across more than one year so you have to identify what you are calling the top by date and what you are calling the bottom by date. The statement should be "between x and y the market lost z% of its value."

pkcrafter
Posts: 13007
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by pkcrafter » Fri May 11, 2018 9:36 am

TheBogleway, dbr is correct, Vanguard is reporting single year performance, but losses compounded during those years in question.

Have a look here..

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/Ne ... retSP.html

Blow by blow

http://business.financialpost.com/perso ... -key-dates

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.

HeftyLefty
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:33 pm

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by HeftyLefty » Mon May 14, 2018 8:59 am

This Marketwatch article says that as a general rule of thumb, "every additional 10% of your portfolio in equities adds about one half of a percentage point per year to your return." If that's correct (perhaps someone more experienced can speak to it), it should be a helpful way to look at the return, if not necessarily the risk differential, between 85/15 and 70/30


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/15-wa ... 2018-05-09

User avatar
siamond
Posts: 4154
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:50 am

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by siamond » Mon May 14, 2018 1:12 pm

HeftyLefty wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 8:59 am
This Marketwatch article says that as a general rule of thumb, "every additional 10% of your portfolio in equities adds about one half of a percentage point per year to your return." If that's correct (perhaps someone more experienced can speak to it), it should be a helpful way to look at the return, if not necessarily the risk differential, between 85/15 and 70/30.
Let me take a crack at this, as it resonates with some of my thinking recently... I used the Simba backtesting spreadsheet, and compared a US only portfolio, using TSM (Total US stock market) for stocks and TBM (Total US bonds) for bonds, comparing a 70/30 allocation to a 85/15 allocation. Then I used a chart which shows a given metric for 30 years periods starting from each year between 1927 and now. Check carefully the verticals, and yes, the Marketwatch assertion seems to be roughly true (1973 being a bit of an exception, but even 1929 and 1965/66 held up).

Image

Now let's look at the academic definition of risk (i.e. standard deviation of the portfolio's balance over the 30 years period). I think this is a really bad definition, disconnected from what really matters (growth while accumulating, income while retiring), but well, here it is. Unsurprisingly, the 85/15 portfolio was more volatile in every case.

Image

One metric is more at the intersection between (meaningful) risk and reward for retirees, this is the Safe Withdrawal Rate (how much you could have withdrawn, a fixed amount inflation-adjusted, without going to bankruptcy at some point). Here it is for each cycle. We can see that the 85/15 AA would not have made much of a difference in the 60s and early 70s. That it would have been troublesome in 1928/29/30. And that it would have nicely beneficial for the other starting years. A mixed bag for sure, and one can reach very different conclusions out of it, depending on your personal situation, goals and fears...

Image

TheBogleWay
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:04 pm

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by TheBogleWay » Tue May 15, 2018 9:39 pm

siamond wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 1:12 pm
HeftyLefty wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 8:59 am
This Marketwatch article says that as a general rule of thumb, "every additional 10% of your portfolio in equities adds about one half of a percentage point per year to your return." If that's correct (perhaps someone more experienced can speak to it), it should be a helpful way to look at the return, if not necessarily the risk differential, between 85/15 and 70/30.
Let me take a crack at this, as it resonates with some of my thinking recently... I used the Simba backtesting spreadsheet, and compared a US only portfolio, using TSM (Total US stock market) for stocks and TBM (Total US bonds) for bonds, comparing a 70/30 allocation to a 85/15 allocation. Then I used a chart which shows a given metric for 30 years periods starting from each year between 1927 and now. Check carefully the verticals, and yes, the Marketwatch assertion seems to be roughly true (1973 being a bit of an exception, but even 1929 and 1965/66 held up).

Image

Now let's look at the academic definition of risk (i.e. standard deviation of the portfolio's balance over the 30 years period). I think this is a really bad definition, disconnected from what really matters (growth while accumulating, income while retiring), but well, here it is. Unsurprisingly, the 85/15 portfolio was more volatile in every case.

Image

One metric is more at the intersection between (meaningful) risk and reward for retirees, this is the Safe Withdrawal Rate (how much you could have withdrawn, a fixed amount inflation-adjusted, without going to bankruptcy at some point). Here it is for each cycle. We can see that the 85/15 AA would not have made much of a difference in the 60s and early 70s. That it would have been troublesome in 1928/29/30. And that it would have nicely beneficial for the other starting years. A mixed bag for sure, and one can reach very different conclusions out of it, depending on your personal situation, goals and fears...

Image

Awesome post with a lot of detail.

At a glance it seems like the 85/15 still came out ahead despite being more volatile right? Does that mean as long as you can manage volatility and handle a downswing without selling, the 85/15 was best?

Might be beating a dead horse with that one but just thought I'd ask.

dbr
Posts: 27207
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by dbr » Wed May 16, 2018 8:29 am

TheBogleWay wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 9:39 pm


At a glance it seems like the 85/15 still came out ahead despite being more volatile right? Does that mean as long as you can manage volatility and handle a downswing without selling, the 85/15 was best?

Might be beating a dead horse with that one but just thought I'd ask.
"Best" is what is the best fit to your objectives. If the criterion for best is higher expected return then 85/15 is "better" and 100/0 is better than that, and tilted to small cap value is better than that, and various schemes to leverage the return are even better than that.

Also 85/15 doesn't come out ahead in spite of being more volatile but "because" it is more volatile. Generally efficient investments that get more return have to take more risk.

I don't know what "manage volatility" would mean. Them only things one can do to manage volatility involve getting less return. If you mean psychologically tolerate large swings in asset value without reacting stupidly and if you mean your situation allows a wide range in possible long term outcome, then you can tolerate volatility.

User avatar
siamond
Posts: 4154
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:50 am

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by siamond » Wed May 16, 2018 9:36 am

TheBogleWay wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 9:39 pm
At a glance it seems like the 85/15 still came out ahead despite being more volatile right? Does that mean as long as you can manage volatility and handle a downswing without selling, the 85/15 was best?

Might be beating a dead horse with that one but just thought I'd ask.
Well, I would agree with dbr, it really depends on your objectives. It's really a glass half-full, half-empty kind of things.
- For accumulators, the fact that the CAGR was almost always significantly higher is certainly a very good thing, but if your emotions go in the way (e.g. due to volatility or else) and you don't stick to the plan, this nice theoretical advantage can vanish in a second...
- For some retirees, the absence of a safety net (regular wages / ability to work a few more years) can make the emotional side of things get much more significant (the portfolio balance becomes a crucial part of one's life), and lead to severe behavioral issues or even health issues. Other retirees would shrug at such issues, having learned a lot from past life and past readings, and be much less impacted.
- Also for retirees with regular withdrawals, keeping an engine of growth in one's portfolio (hence CAGR) does remain important, but it isn't everything, far from it. There is this annoying sequence of return issue. Which can be mitigated by using a sensible variable withdrawal method, and then one should be able (without hindsight knowledge) to get close to the SWR of the retirement period (which is only known after the fact). But then if you look at my 3rd chart, the results were more mixed. Many would question if there are willing to deal with extra volatility, others would appreciate the possibility (without a guarantee) for upside, others would really dislike the late 20s/late 60s scenarios, etc.
- I'm sure there are plenty of other perspectives... And then, the future might be different, of course... Hence my conclusion "one can reach very different conclusions out of it, depending on your personal situation, goals and fears"

dbr
Posts: 27207
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by dbr » Wed May 16, 2018 9:46 am

Another thought about looking at differences between similar but not exactly the same distributions of results is that the actual outcome the investor will get is one of a myriad of possibilities. When two distributions overlap as much as those two do there is no meaningful prediction that it is going to make any difference which one the investor chooses.

It is a fair claim that asset allocation matters but that means it matters to compare the two extremes and the middle but it does not matter to compare 10 or 15 point differences. The investment results that will develop are too wildly uncertain to make such choices meaningful.

jalbert
Posts: 3584
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by jalbert » Wed May 16, 2018 3:25 pm

Answering the OP's question... a good starting point is to assume a 55% drop in equities and compare portfolio drawdowns. For the purposes of asset allocation, that may be sufficient.

A more detailed and quantitative measure is provided by doing a conditional value-at-risk optimization using portfoliovisualizer.com. The optimized portfolios in the example are almost all bonds, but you can see the metrics for the two source portfolios:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/opt ... tion3_1=30

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/opt ... tion3_1=15

For this historical sample period, the 55% equity drawdown heuristic was fairly accurate because 55% is the known drawdown of US equities in 2008-2009. It would understate value-at-risk estimated as a sample statistic using data from the great depression.
Index fund investor since 1987.

User avatar
aj76er
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:34 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by aj76er » Thu May 17, 2018 11:42 am

siamond wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 1:12 pm
HeftyLefty wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 8:59 am
This Marketwatch article says that as a general rule of thumb, "every additional 10% of your portfolio in equities adds about one half of a percentage point per year to your return." If that's correct (perhaps someone more experienced can speak to it), it should be a helpful way to look at the return, if not necessarily the risk differential, between 85/15 and 70/30.
Let me take a crack at this, as it resonates with some of my thinking recently... I used the Simba backtesting spreadsheet, and compared a US only portfolio, using TSM (Total US stock market) for stocks and TBM (Total US bonds) for bonds, comparing a 70/30 allocation to a 85/15 allocation. Then I used a chart which shows a given metric for 30 years periods starting from each year between 1927 and now. Check carefully the verticals, and yes, the Marketwatch assertion seems to be roughly true (1973 being a bit of an exception, but even 1929 and 1965/66 held up).

Image

Now let's look at the academic definition of risk (i.e. standard deviation of the portfolio's balance over the 30 years period). I think this is a really bad definition, disconnected from what really matters (growth while accumulating, income while retiring), but well, here it is. Unsurprisingly, the 85/15 portfolio was more volatile in every case.

Image

One metric is more at the intersection between (meaningful) risk and reward for retirees, this is the Safe Withdrawal Rate (how much you could have withdrawn, a fixed amount inflation-adjusted, without going to bankruptcy at some point). Here it is for each cycle. We can see that the 85/15 AA would not have made much of a difference in the 60s and early 70s. That it would have been troublesome in 1928/29/30. And that it would have nicely beneficial for the other starting years. A mixed bag for sure, and one can reach very different conclusions out of it, depending on your personal situation, goals and fears...

Image
Thanks Saimond for posting this. Here are some thoughts which may lead to further discussions:
1. From the first two plots, the risk-premium for equities seems to significantly shrink after around 1955. In other words, the CAGR seems to go from 1% average to ~0.5% average while the stddev differential remains very consistent (~2%). I'm not sure if this is an anomaly with the dataset being used (i.e. estimated data prior to 1955?), or if there was some sort of structural shift in the U.S. economy or stock-market around that time-frame?
2. From the last chart, and you mention this, for the two worst retirement cohorts in history (late 1920's and 1960's-1975) the 70/30 has the same W/R as a 85/15. At all other times, the 85/15 holder is rewarded for the extra risk. Thus, I suppose the takeaway here, is that if you can live with the less stable income that the 85/15 provides, then the odds of 85/15 giving one a higher SWR (by maybe 0.5%) are pretty good.
"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

User avatar
onthecusp
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 3:25 pm

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by onthecusp » Thu May 17, 2018 1:31 pm

Not as useful for planning as siamond's analysis, I've found Merriman's tables to be interesting snapshots of the year to year volatility of different asset allocations. Here is one based on S&P500 vs bonds, but there are others on his site.

https://paulmerriman.com/wp-content/upl ... -Table.pdf

User avatar
siamond
Posts: 4154
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:50 am

Re: How do you quantify the risk differential between 85/15 and 70/30?

Post by siamond » Thu May 17, 2018 3:07 pm

aj76er wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 11:42 am
1. From the first two plots, the risk-premium for equities seems to significantly shrink after around 1955. In other words, the CAGR seems to go from 1% average to ~0.5% average while the stddev differential remains very consistent (~2%). I'm not sure if this is an anomaly with the dataset being used (i.e. estimated data prior to 1955?), or if there was some sort of structural shift in the U.S. economy or stock-market around that time-frame?
Those things are always nearly impossible to decipher, so many inter-mingling factors, and the honest answer is "I don't know". I would just point out that before 1955, we had two seismic events (world wars), so yeah, this was a different time... Also bonds dropped like a rock in real terms in the 40s (by some 60%!!), so cycles starting after that worked better for bonds in the simulation. But then, one can always find a good reason for which "this time is different"...
aj76er wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 11:42 am
2. From the last chart, and you mention this, for the two worst retirement cohorts in history (late 1920's and 1960's-1975) the 70/30 has the same W/R as a 85/15. At all other times, the 85/15 holder is rewarded for the extra risk. Thus, I suppose the takeaway here, is that if you can live with the less stable income that the 85/15 provides, then the odds of 85/15 giving one a higher SWR (by maybe 0.5%) are pretty good.
This is the glass half-full perspective, which I personally tend to agree with. The glass half-empty perspective is "why bother with all this volatility (and possible heart attacks!) if this isn't going to improve the worst cases" (kind of adding insult to injury). This is where your personality, your past experiences, your personal situation make a big difference. There is no right or wrong answer here, there is only a personal answer.

Post Reply