Benchmarking against 'The Joneses'

Apart from the more conventional Asset Class benchmarking I discussed in previous posts, I also compare my total net worth with comparable peer groups (the "Joneses"). The graph below shows my total net worth (and the stock, real estate and retirement components) over the past six years, and compares it to two relevant peer groups.

The first is the "top decile" (10%) of net worth for Australian's my age (based on the 2002 HILDA national survey results, adjusted for age effects and assumed inflation of 4%pa). By this comparison I'm doing quite well, slowly moving past the top 10% of individual NW and heading towards the top 10% "household" value.

The second comparison I like is to look at how I compare to the cut-off for the annual BRW "Rich 200" list (the 2008 list just came out). This year the cut-off has increased to $200m (up from $180m last year). The plot below shows 1% of the "Rich List" cut-off (to make it comparable to my NW). I'm quite happy if I can keep pace with this particular benchmark, as the cut-off is slightly inflated each year due to population growth - 200 people is now a smaller fraction of the total investor pool than it was back in 2002. One would expect the 200 richest people in Australia to be collectively quite skilled at managing their investments, so my aspirational goal is for my NW to eventually surpass 1% of the BRW "rich list" cut-off. I'm quite happy to leave it up to my sons to try to make it onto this list ;)

I think it's interesting that although new people regularly make it onto the "rich list" through very rapid wealth creation (often speculative business ventures that come good), and other's drop off it just as suddenly (when their business empire collapses), taken as a group the wealth of these "super-rich" increases at a rate typical for a diversified, high-growth asset allocation.

Subscribe to Enough Wealth. Copyright 2006-2008

Yes, China really is getting rich quick

From some of the xenophobic, protectionist-inspired criticism you read about Chinese imports into the US and Australia (from what some blogs write, you'd think every product coming out of China was made from toxic waste and designed to maim or kill western consumers) you may doubt the reality of the Chinese "economic miracle" - don't. As reported in this SMH article China has gone from no serious private wealth 30 years ago, to one billionaire in 1999, 14 in 2006 and 106 billionaires as of last October (according to the Hurun rich list).

While it may seem somewhat obscene for an economy that still includes a couple of hundred million people living on less than US$2 a day to be sprouting a crop of billionaires, there can be no doubt that over time this sudden influx of domestic wealth will help boost the overall wealth of the Chinese population. Even if Chinese private wealth is currently largely the result of the unscrupulous combination of speculation and political power (very similar to the situation in Russia I suspect), in the near future we are going to see a massive rise in size of the affluent middle class in China.

Copyright Enough Wealth 2007

How I became an ex-millionaire

Over the past two years I became a millionaire (on 6 Dec 2006 my Net Worth first went over A$1 million), was a millionaire all through 2007 (my NW peak at $1.184m on 20 jun 2007 and at $1.199m on 1 Nov 2007), and yesterday my estimated NW dropped below A$1m again. Today the stock market is up around 4%, so I'm probably a millionaire again!

If nothing else the past two years have proven some of fundamental truisms of investing:
1. Booms end in a bust
2. When people say "this time it's different", it isn't
3. Diversification helps smooth portfolio returns, but isn't a panacea.
4. Markets tend to revert to the mean
5. Never let tax considerations influence fundamental decisions about asset allocation

During 2006 the stock market was booming and the Sydney property market was still in a slump. At that time I was bemoaning the fact that my portfolio was overweight (around 50%) in real estate compared to what I'd like my allocation to be (around 35%), but with the high transaction costs of selling real estate the only way to realistically adjust with portfolio asset allocation was to borrow some funds against my real estate equity using a HELOC and invest additional funds in the stock market. Now that the market has slumped and Sydney property is making some modest gains I'm glad to be "overweight" in real estate.

Back when the stock market continued it's bull run into 2007 I decided to buy some "insurance" by purchasing some Index Put Options with an expiry date in Dec 2007. These were "out of the money" throughout 2007, but did appreciate in value somewhat during the market slump in July 2007, only to lose value as the market recovered later in the year and expired with no value in December. I had intended to buy some new Index Put Options in December 2007, but never made more than a cursory investigation into the available options, and, not finding any suitable ones with a reasonable price, delayed taking any action while I considered alternative methods of insuring against a bear market, such as short selling Index CFDs or ETF shares. In the end I took no action, and decided it that I'd "missed the boat" when the market corrected 5%-10% in early January. *Bad Move*! If I'd only "rolled over" my Index Put Options into a new series that had a Sep or Dec 2008 expiration date back in December, I'd have preserved around $150K of my Net Worth and would now be in a position to use the gains realised on the Put Options to buy into the market at the current low levels. Instead I've lost a significant percentage of my Net Worth, I have no free cash available to invest in the stock market at the current attractive prices, and my margin loan accounts are getting close to margin call levels of gearing!

The other bad call I made in 2007 was to not sell off some of my stocks when they reached all-time high prices and the market seemed to be reaching "full value" AND the US sub-prime fiasco started making the headlines. I made the mistake of paying attention to pundits who were predicting that although the Australian market was getting close to "full value" it wasn't on exceptionally high p/e's and could gain another 5%-10% by mid-late 2008. Wishful thinking!

When the market has had a bull run for several years, and some fundamentally bad news comes out that doesn't appear to dent the market's confidence, you're in the situation of Wiley Coyote running in mid-air off a cliff. I should have ignored all the talk about "this time it's different" (eg. the Australian market is supported by the commodities boom, the Australian/Asian markets are uncoupled from problems in the US economy, etc. etc) and just taken some profits out of my stock portfolio. I had tax reasons to not want to realise significant capital gains during 2006/2007, but I then continued to let tax considerations influence my decision to hold onto my unrealised gains during 2007/2008 when the market was starting to get choppy.

Oh well, at this stage all I can do is hope the current situation is a milder version of 1987, when the market recovered relatively quickly from it's massive sell-off. If the situation is more like the oil-shocked, stagflationary era of the 1970's it could be quite a long time before my Net Worth regains the peaks of 2007.

Copyright Enough Wealth 2007

Land of opportunity - Australia or US?

It's a widely-held belief that although there is a lot of inequality, anyone can make it to the top in America, no matter how humble their origins. However recently published research by Andrew Leigh of the Australian National University has found that going from rags to riches is more likely in Australia than in the USA, although we are less inclined to believe it. The SMH reported that 12% of Australian boys whose fathers lifetime income put them in the bottom 20% of the population had climbed into the top income bracket in their working lifetime. In contrast, similar data for the US showed that only 5% of sons could expect to make the jump in just one generation. [Sons incomes were compared to their fathers in the study because mothers had historically lower levels of participation in the workforce from which to make comparisons].

Despite the fact that upward mobility is greater in Australia than in the USA, 39% of Australians believe that poor people are trapped in poverty, compared to just 29% of Americans.

It doesn't pay to get too comfortable once you get into the top 20% of income though - the study also found that 17% of sons born to fathers in the richest 20 per cent of the population by income slipped into the poorest 20 per cent later in life.

Copyright Enough Wealth 2007

Creating Wealth in Australia

The latest figures on creating wealth in Australia were reported in the SMH today. It shows that the average Australian houselhold now has a net worth over half a million dollars ($563,000), having increased by 14% over the past two years.

Some other interesting factoids:

• the average amount of debt carried is $92,000
  
• the average value of all assets is $655,000
  
• low-wealth households (disposable income below $445 per week) had their net worth increase by only 5% during the past 2 years, to $24,505
  
• high-wealth households (disposable income above $908 per week) had their net worth increase by 11% to $1,160,000
  
• only 75% of households had superannuation assets, with an average value of $111,000
  
• 69% of Australians own or are paying off their own home, which has an average value of $412,500
  
• nearly 20% of households owned a second property
  

Copyright Enough Wealth 2007

Make Hay While the Sun Shines

Besieged by the non-stop promotion of the consumer life-style everywhere we look and everywhere we go, many people are struggling to cope with consumer debt and the pressure to live a lifestyle that is, to be honest, beyond the means of their available income. However, if you look back at how our grandparents are earlier generations lived, we are currently living in a "golden age". To quote an article in the SMH:

"A couple of decades ago, the language of prosperity was almost like a foreign language ... Now, phrases like full employment, stock market highs and the commodities boom roll off the tongue.

Across the board, jobs are plentiful, wages are high and individual wealth continues to rise. There's no doubt this is a golden age of prosperity - possibly the best of economic times Australia has experienced.

And there's no doubt, either, that the economy is surging. The latest figures for the June quarter showed annual growth of 4.4 per cent, the highest for three years. Non-farm GDP growth, which removes the impact of the drought, was at its fastest in almost 13 years at 5.2 per cent."

At the same time, looking forward there are problems with "the limits to growth" that could quite possibly make living conditions much more difficult for our descendants. The apocalyptic prophesies of Malthus and, much more recently, the "club of Rome" turned out to be wrong (or at least premature). But the more recent concerns about climate change (whether or not they are caused by human activity) could mean we run into problems supplying food and water at reasonable cost to everyone. And the commodity boom has some chance of turning out to be a supercycle (or a "peak" in production of many commodities, not just oil) which could lead to ongoing real price increases in resources.

Therefore, there is a least some chance the our current economic situation is just about "as good as it gets". If so, we'd better make the most of this opportunity to build up of families wealth so we have some store of wealth put aside to tide us, or our kids and grandkids, over where the hard times come again. Make hay while the sun shines, for there may be some hard winters ahead for our descendants.

Copyright Enough Wealth 2007

The Wealth of Nations: Part II - Net Wealth

Another way of comparing the wealth of nations is to look at how much of the world's total net wealth each country has and compare it to what percentage of the world's population lives in that country. If every country had equal shares of the world's wealth per person, then a country with 10% of the world's population would have 10% of the world's net wealth, a country with 1% of the world's population would own 1% of the world's wealth and so on. Therefore, if you simply divide each countries share of the world's net wealth by it's share of the world's total population you can see which countries have more than their "fair" share of the world's wealth, and which have less. I've drawn data on the net wealth and population of the fifty-two most populous countries from "The World Distribution of Household Wealth" by J. Davies, S. Sandstrom, A. Shorrocks, and E. Wolff and ranked them by the ration wealth/population (which I'll call "richness"). These 52 countries represent around 90% of the world's population and 90% of the world's net wealth.

             pcnt pop      pcnt wealth      richness
Japan        2.09          18.37            8.79
USA          4.67          32.65            6.99
UK           0.96          5.95             6.20
Italy        0.95          4.54             4.78
Germany      1.35          5.69             4.21
France       0.97          4.07             4.20
Canada       0.50          1.74             3.48
Australia    0.31          1.04             3.35
Spain        0.67          2.24             3.34
Israel       0.36          1.05             2.92
Korea South  0.77          1.11             1.44
Argentina    0.61          0.75             1.23
Saudi Arabia 0.35          0.28             0.80
Mexico       1.64          1.05             0.64
Iran         1.09          0.62             0.57
Venezuela    0.40          0.20             0.50
Poland       0.64          0.32             0.50
Brazil       2.86          1.33             0.47
Turkey       1.12          0.52             0.46
South Africa 0.75          0.22             0.29
Malaysia     0.38          0.11             0.29
Egypt        1.11          0.31             0.28
Peru         0.43          0.11             0.26
Romania      0.36          0.09             0.25
Colombia     0.69          0.16             0.23
Thailand     1.01          0.22             0.22
Morocco      0.48          0.09             0.19
Iraq         0.41          0.07             0.17
Philippines  1.25          0.21             0.17
Russian Fed. 2.41          0.36             0.15
China       20.57          2.62             0.13
Sri Lanka    0.33          0.04             0.12
Algeria      0.50          0.05             0.10
Indonesia    3.44          0.24             0.07
Ukraine      0.81          0.05             0.06
Bangladesh   2.12          0.13             0.06
Pakistan     2.34          0.14             0.06
Korea-North  0.36          0.02             0.06
Viet Nam     1.29          0.07             0.05
India       16.78          0.91             0.05
Afghanistan  0.39          0.02             0.05
Myanmar      0.78          0.04             0.05
Nepal        0.40          0.02             0.05
Uzbekistan   0.41          0.02             0.05
Kenya        0.50          0.02             0.04
Sudan        0.54          0.02             0.04
Tanzania     0.57          0.02             0.04
Ghana        0.33          0.01             0.03
Uganda       0.40          0.01             0.03
Nigeria      1.93          0.04             0.02
Congo DR     0.82          0.01             0.01
Ethiopia     1.13          0.01             0.01
TOTALS      88.33          89.98 

The richest 12 countries have more than their "fair share" of wealth, while the poorest 19 have less than 1/10th the share of an equitable share of the world's wealth. In an ideal world each nation would have roughly the share of the world's wealth that is due to their population. However, the best way to achieve this is build up the economies of the poorer (underdeveloped) nations, rather than to attempt to simply redistribute the existing wealth.

Copyright Enough Wealth 2007

The Wealth of Nations: Part I - GDP

I was helping out DW with a uni assignment and did some research on the GDP of countries vs. life expectancy at birth. As you might imagine, countries with a very low GDP per capita (less than US$10K pa) generally have lower life expectancies than the wealthier nations. Even so, there are some countries with a low GDP per capita that do better than others - I guess you're better off living on an impoverished tropical island than a war-torn part of northern africa! The chart below shows the relationship between GDP and life expectancy. One thing it does show is that increasing GDP per capita has little effect once you get above $10K-$15K pa.



Copyright Enough Wealth 2007

Wealth Inequality Rises (Again)

Figures published in today's Sydney Morning Herald show while the disposbale income of low-income households rose by 31% in real terms over the past decade, high-income households saw their disposable incomes rise by 40% in the same period.

The popular assumption is that this is a "bad thing" - and it is when the increasing the gap between rich and poor causes social friction and reduces social harmony. But it can't be all that bad when the "poor" households have still seen their disposable income increase by a hefty 31% in real terms over ten years.

Copyright Enough Wealth 2007

Women Millionaires

2007 Billionaire List

Keeping Up with the Uber-Joneses

One of the benchmarks I use to evaluate the progress of my net worth is to compare it to 1% of the amount required for entry to the annual Business Review Weekly "Rich List" of the 200 wealthiest Australians. Last year the cut-off was A$130m. This year it has leap up to A$180m, largely due to the mining boom and surging financial services sector. This represents an increase of 38.5% in just 12 months.

By comparison my net worth increased from A$847K to A$1.033m during 2006 - an increase of "only" 22%. So, it seems that I'm not keeping pace with the Maga-Rich at the moment. This is largely due to the fact that nearly half my net worth is tied up in Sydney real estate, which has been in the doldrums for the past couple of years, and my stock portfolio is a bit underweight the mining sector. But overall I'm still pretty pleased with the performance of my investment portfolio.

Anyhow, although the cut-off point for entry to the Rich List rose by 38%, the estimated total wealth of the people making the list only increased by 27% from A$101.5b in 2006, to A$128.6b today. It appears that while accumulating wealth get easier after you've made your first million, it starts to get harder again after the first billion - those at the top of the Rich List (excluding the miners) are growing their wealth less rapidly than the others in the list.

Enough Wealth

Demographic Disaster or Hype and Hysteria?

The Australian Treasurer today released an updated "Intergenerational Report", five years after the first report made official the looming demographic disaster facing government finances as the aging Baby Boomer generation reached retirement age, stopped paying taxes and starting drawing on the aged pension. The most interesting aspect from my point of view was the radical change in the projected situation in 40 years time (which is based on expected trends in life expectancy, fertility rates, retirement ages and workforce participation) compared to the previous report. Instead of a projected 50 Billion dollars a year (5% of GDP) budget deficit in 40 years time, the latest projection is for a more modest $35 Billion dollar a year shortfall - a reduction of 40%. This decrease was largely due to a slight increase in the fertility rate (whereas the original report expected the downward trend in fertility to persevere) and a slight increase in the participation rate, especially of older male full-time employees. It makes me wonder what situation will arise if, as is likely, the participation rate increases further. As there is apparently a large proportion of the Baby Boomer generation that has insufficient funds socked away for their retirement, it seems inevitable that more of them will have to continue working beyond their planned retirement age. Perhaps this will end up being a non-event. I'll see what comes out in the next update 5 years from now.

Enough Wealth

What is $1000 Worth?

It's not a trick question. I was just wondering today what is the ultimate effect of adding $1000 to my "family fortune". As I think I'm on track to have enough to live off by the time I retire, additions to my net worth over the next 20 or so years should end up increasing the size of my estate. Of course one has to make a lot of assumptions to model this. My assumptions are:
* my kids and descendants either make their own way, or at least live off the income of the "family fortune" rather than blow the lot. A big assumption, but at least I won't be around to find out if I'm wrong ;)
* the "estate" will be invested tax effectively and in a sensible asset allocation that provides a reasonable "real" return - say 4%. This could be conservative, if the assets are mainly "high growth" ones such as stocks, real estate, and some bonds. But, looking at the long term there is the risk on entire markets doing very poorly, hyperinflation, and so on. Imagine if your family fortune had been entirely invested in Russia, Germany or Argentina 100 years ago. So there is probably a need to diversify between markets and also to spread the actual holdings to several different countries to minimise sovereign risk. This is likely to diminish to overall returns achieved.

So, what might $1000 be worth? It could provide a weekly income of around 77 cents per week on an indefinite basis. Not as much as you might have thought.

Enough Wealth

Studies I'd like to see

I'm always fascinated to read studies on income, wealth, savings patterns etc. for different countries and demographic groups. But there are some key variables that always seem to be missing from such studies:

1. Correlation of Net Worth and IQ
- yes I know that there are lots of studies showing that higher education leads to higher income, but the link to higher wealth isn't so strong. There are even indications that education isn't much help in getting rich - lots of self-made millionaires built up a business without a college degree. But, this doesn't mean that these people weren't intelligent. Forrest Gump not withstanding.

2. Correlation of Net Worth and religion.
- you'd think that some religions would be more compatible than others with accumulating wealth. And within a religious grouping you'd expect a correlation with how "strictly" religious someone is and their net worth. After all, you'd expect Christians that don't tithe 10% of their income to end up with greater net worth. But this relationship might be skewed by a small number of high net worth tele-evangelists! ;)

Then again, such studies would not be PC.

Enough Wealth

Income and Wealth - How do you compare?

Over the past two years, AMP and the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM)have producted a series of reports that open windows on Australian society, the way they live and work – and their financial and personal aspirations.

The reports focus on the distribution of income and wealth as key factors that differentiate generations and segments of Australian society.

Well worth a look as the reports are well written and easy to digest, pulling together heaps of detailed statistical information that would otherwise be hard to track down and analyse.

Enough Wealth

World Map of Happiness

I just couldn't resist a link to this research that shows that money can buy you happiness (or at least some "Subjective Well-Being (SWB)").

Adrian White, an analytic social psychologist at the University's School of Psychology, has found that "a nation's level of happiness was most closely associated with health levels (correlation of .62), followed by wealth (.52), and then provision of education (.51).
The three predictor variables of health, wealth and education were also very closely associated with each other, illustrating the interdependence of these factors.
There is a belief that capitalism leads to unhappy people. However, when people are asked if they are happy with their lives, people in countries with good healthcare, a higher GDP per capita, and access to education were much more likely to report being happy."



This is consistent with previous research that shows that household happiness had a positive correlation with household income.



Australia doesn't rank in the top 20, but I'd guess it's close to the USA (ranked 23). One reason I think that people generally have the opinion that "money can't buy you happiness" is that people expect too much - they think that if they just got a 10% payrise, or won $20,000 on the lottery, all their problems would be solved.

Enough Wealth

Confusing Wealth with Lifestyle

An article on cnn.com reports that in UCLA's annual survey of college freshman 75% of those surveyed in 2006 thought it was essential or very important to be "very well-off financially.", compared with 62.5 percent who said the same in 1980 and only 42 percent in 1966. What I found most disturbing was that "wealth" was apparently seen as synonymous with the "trappings" of wealth. No wonder these people will leave college with student debt and immediately pile on more debt trying to acquire the "lifestyle of the rich and famous" before they actually have any net worth, let alone become wealthy.

Wealth Today

Some recent figures on wealth and income in Australia and Worldwide:

Australia:
In 2003-4 14% of taxpayers earned $62,501 or more
Average Household wealth is $468,000 (median net worth is $295,000)
Wealthiest 20% of households had 59% of total household net worth (average NW of $1.4m)

Worldwide:
In 2000 the wealthiest 10% of the world's population held 85% of global household wealth.
The top 1% owned 40% of global assets, while the bottom 50% owned around 1% of global assets.
US had average wealth holding of US$210,319 per adult in 2000, Japan US$227,600 per adult, Australia US$94,712 per adult. Or, in percentage terms, US had 5.5% of the world's adult population owning around 33% of the world's wealth, Japan 2.7% of the world's adults owning 18.3%, and Australia 0.4% of the world's Adult's owning 1% of the world's wealth.

In the US the richest 10% of the population owns 70% of the wealth, for Japan the figure is the top 10% owing 40% of the wealth, and for Australia the top 10% own 45% of the wealth.

The latest figures show that Australia's wealth is now a record $354,000 per capita, up 93.4% in the past five years in real terms (inflation adjusted). By comparison my personal NW is up 107.4% in real terms over the past five years - so I'm doing slightly better than average. Like they say, a rising tide raises all boats, so it's important to realise that when property and stock markets have been booming improvements in your net worth are almost unavoidable. Don't get carried away and think that you're a great real estate tycoon or stock picker just becuase you've made a profit!

I find that these "wealth comparisons" generally seem to view wealth inequality as an obviously "bad thing", which I don't totally agree with. While it's good to assist the "deserving poor" - be they individuals or countries, I don't think universal wealth equality is a goal to strive for.

Consider ten people who start out with the same background, ability and opportunities. Assume they have similar jobs and earn the same amounts, so that by age 40 each of them has earned a total of $500,000. 1 of these ten people is by nature frugal and enjoys the "simple things" so manages to save 10% of their income each year, invested at 5% ROI. Another 4 out of the ten spend a bit more, so they only manage to save 2% of their income each year. The last five people in the group spend every cent that they earn, thus accumulating no wealth. Where would these ten people be at age 40?

Person  Net Worth
1       $52,665
2       $16,533
3       $16,533
4       $16,533
5       $16,533
6       $0
7       $0
8       $0
9       $0
10      $0

So, how does this translate to "wealth distribution"?

Total wealth of this group is $148,797. Average NW is $14,879 (but median NW is $8,266)/
The wealthiest 10% of this group owns 56% of the wealth, while the bottom 50% only 0% of the wealth. Shock, horror - not! All this means is that if you defer consumption and accumulate capital, you'll end up with MUCH more wealth than if you spend everything you earn. This applies to individuals, families and countries. The only inequality that we should try to mitigate is that of opportunity, NOT of outcome.

What I find interesting is that this simplistic model of spending/saving behaviour is a pretty good match of most wealth distributions observed around the world. That is, in any group of people, around 1 in 10 will be very frugal and "save for a rainy day" (ie.PAWs), another 4 out of 10 will try to save and invest, with limited success, and around half the population spends as much as they can.

Wealth Scoreboard

For Australians the HILDA survey provides statistically valid data about household net worth and lets you see where you stand in relation to others of similar age or income. For US readers Scott Burns has some interesting posts about his "Wealth Scoreboard" based on similar data for the US. To save you hunting around his website for the latest figures, here they are:

Here’s how the Scoreboard works. Households in the U.S. are divided by age groups and then by the net worth required to be in the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and top 25 percent of all households in that age group. A median figure is also provided so you can tell whether you are in the top, or bottom, half of your age group.

If you are 50 to 59 years old, for instance, you’ll need a net worth of at least $188,000 to be in the top half of households that age. You’ll need 3 times that, $570,000, to be in the top 25 percent. And you’ll need a whopping $9,554,000 to be in the top 1 percent. (See table below.)

The Wealth Scoreboard
The table shows median net worth for households, arranged by age of the chief earner. To find your rank, go to the right age category and find the net worth closest to yours. (Data are from 2004; all U.S. dollars are in nominal terms, in thousands.)
Age Group	Top 1%	Top 5%	Top 10%	Top 25%	Median
80 or Older	$3,349	$1,770	$1,149	$536	$188
70 - 79	$9,198	$1,945	$1,106	$489	$183
60 - 69	$10,188	$3,075	$1,522	$699	$232
50 - 59	$9,554	$2,223	$1,180	$570	$188
40 - 49	$4,710	$1,297	$746	$353	$113
30 - 39	$1,971	$451	$272	$121	$39
20 - 29	$607	$206	$103	$30	$6
Source: VIP Forum, based on data in the 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances

The Scoreboard is put together by VIP Forum, a Washington DC based group that does research on wealth and wealth management practices. The basic data comes from a Federal Reserve survey that is done every three years, the Survey of Consumer Finances. The last survey was done in 2004.