Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Topic Author
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

This morning while looking at my VG Portfolio Analysis I noticed an alert message. It said :

Portfolio Alert. Some of your sector weightings differ from the markets.

Now while that is nice to know, why tell me? Shouldn't Vanguard be telling its portfolio managers? All of my investments are in Vanguard's index funds. The portfolio target is 50/50 with weightings of 70/30 domestic / internationals in both stocks and bonds. I do not trade in these accounts.

Anyone out there know what's going on?
Last edited by RadAudit on Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by dbr »

Not all stock funds are weighted at the market other than a total market fund itself. That would be true if you feature a value fund or a growth fund or a dividend fund of some kind.

Here is VVIAX:
Basic Materials 2.30%
Consumer Discretionary 5.10%
Consumer Staples 10.80%
Energy 7.80%
Financials 20.10%
Health Care 19.00%
Industrials 13.90%
Real Estate 3.10%
Technology 8.00%
Telecommunications 3.90%
Utilities 6.00%

Here is VWUAX:
Communication Services 9.80%
Consumer Discretionary 19.00%
Consumer Staples 3.00%
Energy 1.30%
Financials 4.00%
Health Care 14.70%
Industrials 5.50%
Information Technology 41.00%
Materials 0.40%
Real Estate 1.30%


Why they take it upon themselves to warn you is beyond me. I would take such messages as garbage and also as an insult.
Topic Author
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

dbr wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:28 am Why they take it upon themselves to warn you is beyond me. I would take such messages as garbage and also as an insult.
Thanks for the recommendations. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best.

I sent a note to Vanguard. I was personally hoping for a more creative reply from them. Somewhat along the lines of ... We noticed our computer geek was a little late returning from lunch and was last seen boarding a long-distance Gulfstream at the local airport ...

No reply yet. Will keep you updated.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
rkhusky
Posts: 17764
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by rkhusky »

dbr wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:28 am I would take such messages as garbage and also as an insult.
Why an insult? Vanguard doesn’t know all my holdings, so their portfolio alerts are irrelevant, but hardly insulting.
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by dbr »

rkhusky wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:46 pm
dbr wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:28 am I would take such messages as garbage and also as an insult.
Why an insult? Vanguard doesn’t know all my holdings, so their portfolio alerts are irrelevant, but hardly insulting.
That is how I see it. Other people don't.
User avatar
retired@50
Posts: 12824
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:36 pm
Location: Living in the U.S.A.

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by retired@50 »

RadAudit wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:16 am This morning while looking at my VG Portfolio Analysis I noticed an alert message. It said :

Portfolio Alert. Some of your sector weightings differ from the markets.

Now while that is nice to know, why tell me? Shouldn't Vanguard be telling its portfolio managers? All of my investments are in Vanguard's index funds. The portfolio target is 50/50 with weightings of 70/30 domestic / internationals in both stocks and bonds. I do not trade in these accounts.

Anyone out there know what's going on?
You say you're invested in index funds, but which ones?

I agree that if it's the total stock market fund, then this is an odd message, but if you've chosen to overweight real estate by using a REIT fund, then that's your choice.

Regards,
If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15081
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

RadAudit wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:16 am This morning while looking at my VG Portfolio Analysis I noticed an alert message. It said :

Portfolio Alert. Some of your sector weightings differ from the markets.

Now while that is nice to know, why tell me? Shouldn't Vanguard be telling its portfolio managers? All of my investments are in Vanguard's index funds. The portfolio target is 50/50 with weightings of 70/30 domestic / internationals in both stocks and bonds. I do not trade in these accounts.

Anyone out there know what's going on?
maybe they just want you to know that you could underperform the market because of your funds/allocations to those funds/sectors
maybe they just want you not to be disappointed if/when that happens
maybe they just want you to understand why that happened if/when that happens.

of course your being different from the market could mean outperformance too depending on how you tilted to which sectors and whether those sectors outperform or underperform the market as a whole going forward.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52215
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: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by nisiprius »

Something is seriously broken in Portfolio Watch.

Yes, I'm getting the same alert. Not a technicality, not a roundoff error, not a day-of-month vs end-of-month error. Broken. Busted. Spurious. Defective. Out to lunch. Wrong.

The smoking gun is that it says I have 0% invested in the Consumer Discretionary sector.

(How about you, Radaudit?)

I would be willing to bet that, outside of the sector ETFs, you can't find any Vanguard fund that has nothing in Consumer Discretionary. Value, growth, low-vol, multifactor, actively managed--I'll bet they all have at least some.

Shame on Vanguard. Shame on Vanguard software quality control.

My only holding of US Stocks is the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, VTSAX. And my only other stock funding is Total International. Again, 0% Consumer Discretionary is the smoking gun--this is not a case of accidentally including Total International.

Left, Portfolio Watch. Right, sector weights of VTSAX, cut and pasted (and I do mean cut and pasted, because they don't even list the sectors the same way) from the VTSAX web page.

Image

So, clearly, their weightings for "the market" are OK, but their weightings for my portfolio are not.

Just for laughs... the weight of Consumer Discretionary in Total International and a few other select funds is:

Total International...hmmm... not shown by Vanguard, but 11.29% in "consumer cyclical."
Small-cap Value, 14.70%
Primecap Core, 10.70%
Market Neutral, 9.80%
Multifactor, 15.40%

I challenge anybody to find a Vanguard stock fund except for ten of the sector ETFs that has 0.0% consumer discretionary sector exposure.
Last edited by nisiprius on Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
User avatar
retired@50
Posts: 12824
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:36 pm
Location: Living in the U.S.A.

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by retired@50 »

nisiprius wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:03 pm Something is seriously broken in Portfolio Watch.

Yes, I'm getting the same alert. Not a technicality, not a roundoff error, not a day-of-month vs end-of-month error. Broken. Busted. Bug issue. Defect. Out to lunch. Wrong.

The smoking gun is that it says I have 0% invested in the Consumer Discretionary sector.
I suspect a missing data input of some sort.

If I'm recalling correctly, I was getting a message recently about my large-mid-small cap balance being "off", but when I looked a week later, it was "fixed".

Regards,
If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52215
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: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by nisiprius »

I'd appreciate it if others would check their Portfolio Watch results--

vanguard.com >> [log in] >> Portfolio Watch >> Stock analysis "See details" >> Industry Sectors

and see whether "Consumer Discretionary: 0.0%" is showing for just me, or everyone.
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.
User avatar
retired@50
Posts: 12824
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:36 pm
Location: Living in the U.S.A.

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by retired@50 »

nisiprius wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:50 pm I'd appreciate it if others would check their Portfolio Watch results--

vanguard.com >> [log in] >> Portfolio Watch >> Stock analysis "See details" >> Industry Sectors

and see whether "Consumer Discretionary: 0.0%" is showing for just me, or everyone.
My consumer discretionary shows 8.3% for my portfolio, 14.2% for the market and a difference of -5.9%

Also, my large-mid-small cap alert is back today. I'm showing too much mid-cap.

Oddly enough, when I look at the detailed breakdown of which funds hold consumer discretionary, my mid-cap fund doesn't show up, but when I look into the holdings of VIMAX, it shows that 13.7% of the fund is invested in consumer discretionary.

Regards,
If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell
Topic Author
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

retired@50 wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:47 pm
RadAudit wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:16 am This morning while looking at my VG Portfolio Analysis I noticed an alert message. It said :

Portfolio Alert. Some of your sector weightings differ from the markets.

Now while that is nice to know, why tell me? Shouldn't Vanguard be telling its portfolio managers? All of my investments are in Vanguard's index funds. The portfolio target is 50/50 with weightings of 70/30 domestic / internationals in both stocks and bonds. I do not trade in these accounts.

Anyone out there know what's going on?
You say you're invested in index funds, but which ones?

I agree that if it's the total stock market fund, then this is an odd message, but if you've chosen to overweight real estate by using a REIT fund, then that's your choice.

Regards,
Nothing fancy. In the IRAs, the bulk of the portfolio, is in Life Strategy Conservative Growth (VSCGX) and Life Strategy Moderate Growth (VSMGX). The rest is in a taxable MM, VTSAX and VTWAX.

Thanks for the compliment; but, I'm not that sophisticated for a complicated portfolio.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
Topic Author
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

nisiprius wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:03 pm Something is seriously broken in Portfolio Watch.

Yes, I'm getting the same alert. Not a technicality, not a roundoff error, not a day-of-month vs end-of-month error. Broken. Busted. Spurious. Defective. Out to lunch. Wrong.

The smoking gun is that it says I have 0% invested in the Consumer Discretionary sector.

(How about you, Radaudit?)

I would be willing to bet that, outside of the sector ETFs, you can't find any Vanguard fund that has nothing in Consumer Discretionary. Value, growth, low-vol, multifactor, actively managed--I'll bet they all have at least some.

Shame on Vanguard. Shame on Vanguard software quality control.

My only holding of US Stocks is the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, VTSAX. And my only other stock funding is Total International. Again, 0% Consumer Discretionary is the smoking gun--this is not a case of accidentally including Total International.

Left, Portfolio Watch. Right, sector weights of VTSAX, cut and pasted (and I do mean cut and pasted, because they don't even list the sectors the same way) from the VTSAX web page.

Image

So, clearly, their weightings for "the market" are OK, but their weightings for my portfolio are not.

Just for laughs... the weight of Consumer Discretionary in Total International and a few other select funds is:

Total International...hmmm... not shown by Vanguard, but 11.29% in "consumer cyclical."
Small-cap Value, 14.70%
Primecap Core, 10.70%
Market Neutral, 9.80%
Multifactor, 15.40%

I challenge anybody to find a Vanguard stock fund except for ten of the sector ETFs that has 0.0% consumer discretionary sector exposure.
The clue for me yesterday was when Vanguard reported I had 0% in the domestic energy sector. That's 19% off market weights.

Nisi, thanks for the reply. I was beginning to think that, as an old retired sometimes auditor, I was just beginning to go a little too far around the bend.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by dbr »

So is the conclusion that these nefarious warnings are popping up because Vanguard can't figure out what is even in their funds?
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15081
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

nisiprius wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:50 pm I'd appreciate it if others would check their Portfolio Watch results--

vanguard.com >> [log in] >> Portfolio Watch >> Stock analysis "See details" >> Industry Sectors

and see whether "Consumer Discretionary: 0.0%" is showing for just me, or everyone.
yep, mine says 0.0% too.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
User avatar
Wiggums
Posts: 7051
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:02 am

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by Wiggums »

nisiprius wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:50 pm I'd appreciate it if others would check their Portfolio Watch results--

vanguard.com >> [log in] >> Portfolio Watch >> Stock analysis "See details" >> Industry Sectors

and see whether "Consumer Discretionary: 0.0%" is showing for just me, or everyone.
This is what I get for a single vanguard fund. Two differences that I see immediately are:

"Consumer Discretionary: 0.1%"

“uncategorized: 38.3%”
"I started with nothing and I still have most of it left."
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52215
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: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by nisiprius »

dbr wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:41 am So is the conclusion that these nefarious warnings are popping up because Vanguard can't figure out what is even in their funds?
Yes.

And it's something gross, there's no point in wasting time trying to reverse-engineer their calculations, I don't need to do any calculations to know that I have more than 0% in the Consumer Discretionary sector, or that RadAudit has more than 0% in domestic energy.

It's not the usual boring difference-of-opinion-presented-as-an-alert. (Circa 2007, I had 21% of my stocks invested internationally, and Portfolio Watch displayed a red "alert" to make me aware that I had more than 20%. Nowadays, I have about 23% and Portfolio Watch displays a red "alert" to make me aware that I have less than 30%!)
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.
Clarky
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:10 pm

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by Clarky »

I’m getting the same type of readings. My only domestic etf - VTI - shows that I have no blend stock (all growth and value) in addition to the items mentioned by others.

However, they DO know what’s in their funds, because I reviewed the current composition page and it’s all there. Looks fine. I don’t tend to get worked up over these data glitches that clear themselves up rather quickly usually.

And they don’t just happen at Vanguard. I’ve had some interesting things pop up and disappear at Fidelity as well. Patience is a virtue.
Topic Author
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

nisiprius wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:03 pm Something is seriously broken in Portfolio Watch.
I agree.

Still no answer from Vanguard, although I did get an e-mail saying they got my e-mail concerning what was going on. I'll keep you posted if anything shows up.

Now I have no idea what is really going on in Portfolio Watch. However, I remember several years ago a portfolio manager (Ness? Neff?) for the Vanguard's S&P 500 fund routinely beat the S&P 500 performance by trading various financial products. It helped to keep expense ratios low. What may be happening is that similar trading is going on in the funds. And, the software has not been updated to correctly account for their impact on individual account records in Portfolio Watch. Today was a triple witching hour on option expirations, I believe. Our results could be a run up to that options expiration.

Maybe not. Well, you can't get through the day without a good rationalization.
Last edited by RadAudit on Fri Mar 17, 2023 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
User avatar
retired@50
Posts: 12824
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:36 pm
Location: Living in the U.S.A.

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by retired@50 »

RadAudit wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:25 am
retired@50 wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:47 pm
RadAudit wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:16 am This morning while looking at my VG Portfolio Analysis I noticed an alert message. It said :

Portfolio Alert. Some of your sector weightings differ from the markets.

Now while that is nice to know, why tell me? Shouldn't Vanguard be telling its portfolio managers? All of my investments are in Vanguard's index funds. The portfolio target is 50/50 with weightings of 70/30 domestic / internationals in both stocks and bonds. I do not trade in these accounts.

Anyone out there know what's going on?
You say you're invested in index funds, but which ones?

I agree that if it's the total stock market fund, then this is an odd message, but if you've chosen to overweight real estate by using a REIT fund, then that's your choice.

Regards,
Nothing fancy. In the IRAs, the bulk of the portfolio, is in Life Strategy Conservative Growth (VSCGX) and Life Strategy Moderate Growth (VSMGX). The rest is in a taxable MM, VTSAX and VTWAX.

Thanks for the compliment; but, I'm not that sophisticated for a complicated portfolio.
Given the mix of funds you mention above, I'd be comfortable ignoring any error messages from the Portfolio Watch tool. These index funds and blended funds own the whole market, so you're covered. I think there's a near zero chance that your holdings are deviating away from the overall US or international stock market.

Regards,
If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52215
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: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by nisiprius »

retired@50 wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:47 pm ...I agree that if it's the total stock market fund, then this is an odd message, but if you've chosen to overweight real estate by using a REIT fund, then that's your choice...
No, no, no.

Multiple people saying that Portfolio Watch is showing a sector exposure of 0% to some sector is a smoking gun.

This is a gross programming error, it can't be a legitimate result of any reasonable arithmetic.

It's just not possible. REIT funds, factor tilts, dividend orientations, any of Vanguard's actively managed funds... they are not going to have zero exposure to any sector. I don't believe in the theory of micro-active-trading within the funds, but even if that were true it would be a micro-effect. It's not possible that the manager would liquidate all of the consumer discretionary stocks for a few minutes, just long enough for Portfolio Watch to take a snapshot, and then buy them all back.

The only way you could actually get a 0% exposure to any sector would be to have a portfolio consisting of nothing but the actual sector ETFs themselves. For example, when people have asked if they can get "the S&P 500 but without tech," you could invest in ten of the eleven sector ETFs and leave out tech.
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.
Clarky
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:10 pm

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by Clarky »

All will be well.
User avatar
retired@50
Posts: 12824
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:36 pm
Location: Living in the U.S.A.

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by retired@50 »

nisiprius wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 6:09 pm
retired@50 wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:47 pm ...I agree that if it's the total stock market fund, then this is an odd message, but if you've chosen to overweight real estate by using a REIT fund, then that's your choice...
No, no, no.

Multiple people saying that Portfolio Watch is showing a sector exposure of 0% to some sector is a smoking gun.

This is a gross programming error, it can't be a legitimate result of any reasonable arithmetic.

It's just not possible. REIT funds, factor tilts, dividend orientations, any of Vanguard's actively managed funds... they are not going to have zero exposure to any sector. I don't believe in the theory of micro-active-trading within the funds, but even if that were true it would be a micro-effect. It's not possible that the manager would liquidate all of the consumer discretionary stocks for a few minutes, just long enough for Portfolio Watch to take a snapshot, and then buy them all back.

The only way you could actually get a 0% exposure to any sector would be to have a portfolio consisting of nothing but the actual sector ETFs themselves. For example, when people have asked if they can get "the S&P 500 but without tech," you could invest in ten of the eleven sector ETFs and leave out tech.
I agree that the sector ETFs would have to be used to achieve the result the website is showing,

Given that the OP has stated that they are using 2 LifeStrategy funds and two total stock market type funds (VTSAX and VTWAX) I think they can ignore the error, and you probably can too. That doesn't mean that Vanguard should ignore it. I don't think for a moment that the fund manager(s) have sold all their consumer discretionary stocks.

As I stated earlier, I suspect (purely a guess) it's a data input error of some kind. In other words, I bet that the data source(s) that tell the website how much consumer discretionary stock is contained in one or more funds is either missing or wrong.

My consumer discretionary shows around 8.3% in Portfolio Watch, but I suspect it's more than that. The fund I own that was not listed as owning ANY consumer discretionary stock was the Mid Cap Index VIMAX. I don't think that's true.

I also suspect that Vanguard will get around to fixing this sooner or later,... it could be as simple as one line of code, or one missing data file.

Regards,
If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell
User avatar
whodidntante
Posts: 13114
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: outside the echo chamber

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by whodidntante »

nisiprius wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:03 pm Shame on Vanguard. Shame on Vanguard software quality control.
It's controlled. This is a disagreement on the target. :P
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52215
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: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by nisiprius »

I reported it to Vanguard via the regular "secure message" channel.
whodidntante wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:51 pm
nisiprius wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:03 pm Shame on Vanguard. Shame on Vanguard software quality control.
It's controlled. This is a disagreement on the target. :P
"This is a six sigma organization! We need 1.4 more defects per million to achieve our goal!"
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.
abc132
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by abc132 »

They are moving some businesses from one category to another and the incorrect postings are almost certainly a result of companies being moved out of consumer discretionary. Target will now be in the same category as Walmart.

I suggest waiting a day or two and relaxing a bit when you see something temporarily incorrect.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52215
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: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by nisiprius »

abc132 wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:27 pm They are moving some businesses from one category to another and the incorrect postings are almost certainly a result of companies being moved out of consumer discretionary. Target will now be in the same category as Walmart.

I suggest waiting a day or two and relaxing a bit when you see something temporarily incorrect.
No amount of reclassifying businesses could explain 0% in Consumer Discretionary. Not unless every business in that sector were reclassified into a different sector.
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.
abc132
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by abc132 »

nisiprius wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:30 pm
abc132 wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:27 pm They are moving some businesses from one category to another and the incorrect postings are almost certainly a result of companies being moved out of consumer discretionary. Target will now be in the same category as Walmart.

I suggest waiting a day or two and relaxing a bit when you see something temporarily incorrect.
No amount of reclassifying businesses could explain 0% in Consumer Discretionary. Not unless every business in that sector were reclassified into a different sector.
NaN is a funny thing. It tends to produce 0's when used in a calculation.

The fact that you see a zero is not shocking or meaningful. Just wait for the categorization to update without over-focusing on the 0 value.

I don't think we even know if Vanguard did anything wrong. They could be receiving a bad value from the service that sends them prices and waiting for a fix from that company.
Topic Author
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

abc132 wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:33 pm I don't think we even know if Vanguard did anything wrong. They could be receiving a bad value from the service that sends them prices and waiting for a fix from that company.
Actually, we do know Vanguard (or more specifically, someone) did something wrong. Grievously wrong.

They failed to have adequate quality controls on the documents they sent to the public that would have prevented this fiasco. As a result, they now have a situation where potentially thousands of people can look at this report and conclude (probably incorrectly) that the [inappropriate term deleted - mod mkc] staff at Vanguard don't know - don't care - jack about what they are doing with their money. (I personally don't hold that opinion.)

When folks see that a corporation doesn't have adequate control over the money entrusted to them they tend to become concerned. Especially if it is their money. (OK, what's a few million dollars among friends when it only took 40+ years accumulate that amount? Money you and your spouse have to depend on for the rest of your lives - or sleep out under a bridge.)

Stuff like that needs to be prevented or at least fixed and apologized for. It takes a long time for some folks to forget if it gets out of hand. OTOH, it might just all fade away and nothing happens.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52215
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: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by nisiprius »

abc132 wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:33 pm...NaN is a funny thing. It tends to produce 0's when used in a calculation...
I've never seen this personally.

Have you actually seen this?

Since IEEE-754 arithmetic became the norm in hardware and in programming languages, the lazy and inadequately debugged program will typically present "NaN" to the user. (In Ye Olde Days, it would have typically crashed the program with a "divide by zero error.")

In IEEE-754 arithmetic, a NaN will not produce a zero when it is an operand in a subsequent operation. It will propagate through every kind of arithmetic operation and produce a result of NaN. 3 + NaN = NaN. 0 x NaN = NaN. Log(NaN) = NaN.

Programmers ought to catch NaNs and present them to the user in some other way. "----". "ERROR." "Data not available." "N/A." But not zero.
I don't think we even know if Vanguard did anything wrong.
If Vanguard is displaying a NaN as 0, I feel they are doing something wrong.
Just wait for the categorization to update without over-focusing on the 0 value.
I can't come up with a plausible scenario for how a calculation of the overall sector exposures in a portfolio of mutual funds with individual sector exposures could generate a NaN. The most common way to evoke a NaN is to divide zero by zero. So I don't see how it could happen unless Vanguard's computers believed that I had a total of zero in all of my accounts, or if it believed that a mutual fund's sector exposures added up to zero instead of 100%. If the incoming data actually contains NaN's or sector exposures that are all perfect zeros, it shouldn't show me spurious warnings about my portfolio, it should say "data not available."
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.
Clarky
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:10 pm

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by Clarky »

I have a question… when we run the portfolio watch, is the program really looking at the actual shares of stock, or value of actual stock, we own by merit of owning a particular fund. I can’t imagine that’s the case. I have to believe that I own whatever is supposed to be in VTI. (For instance). It may not be a great look, but unless someone can show me the real harm in a temporary and for informational purposes only data point glitch, I can’t get too worked up about it.

Anyway, I confess, I am a Vanguard cheerleader, and it amazes me that people jump all over every minor software hiccup, or screwed up complicated transaction that usually turns out to be at least partially user error; I read the same stuff, and have experienced it, with other brokerages. I don’t see nearly the piling on. It borders on obsession.

Again, all will be well.
Topic Author
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

Clarky wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:15 pm unless someone can show me the real harm in a temporary and for informational purposes only data point glitch, I can’t get too worked up about it.
You're correct. There is no real harm in this data point glitch. It's a cute little diversion on a Saturday afternoon and a wonderful excuse to avoid raking up the last of the fall leaves.

If there is a problem it is this report can go out to investors who may not be as understanding as you. That problem is real small because based on a brief review I am one of the few to find it. But I can't be the only one to find it. Sooner or later, someone will trip over it and take a dimmer view of the situation. BTW, have you seen "Mary Poppins" or "It's a Wonderful Life"? Both have interesting and relevant scenes.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15081
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

anybody want to post to vanguard's facebook/twitter page regarding this? I have neither facebook nor twitter. Seems the best way of notifying companies this day of what's gone wrong at their business.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
Clarky
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:10 pm

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by Clarky »

RadAudit wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:07 pm
Clarky wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:15 pm unless someone can show me the real harm in a temporary and for informational purposes only data point glitch, I can’t get too worked up about it.
You're correct. There is no real harm in this data point glitch. It's a cute little diversion on a Saturday afternoon and a wonderful excuse to avoid raking up the last of the fall leaves.

If there is a problem it is this report can go out to investors who may not be as understanding as you. That problem is real small because based on a brief review I am one of the few to find it. But I can't be the only one to find it. Sooner or later, someone will trip over it and take a dimmer view of the situation. BTW, have you seen "Mary Poppins" or "It's a Wonderful Life"? Both have interesting and relevant scenes.
I am going to assume it will be cleared up before long; I could be wrong, but would be surprised.

Yes, I have seen both. Good references.
abc132
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by abc132 »

nisiprius wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:24 am Programmers ought to catch NaNs and present them to the user in some other way. "----". "ERROR." "Data not available." "N/A." But not zero.
I don't think we even know if Vanguard did anything wrong.
If Vanguard is displaying a NaN as 0, I feel they are doing something wrong.
Just wait for the categorization to update without over-focusing on the 0 value.
I can't come up with a plausible scenario for how a calculation of the overall sector exposures in a portfolio of mutual funds with individual sector exposures could generate a NaN. The most common way to evoke a NaN is to divide zero by zero. So I don't see how it could happen unless Vanguard's computers believed that I had a total of zero in all of my accounts, or if it believed that a mutual fund's sector exposures added up to zero instead of 100%. If the incoming data actually contains NaN's or sector exposures that are all perfect zeros, it shouldn't show me spurious warnings about my portfolio, it should say "data not available."
You can't conceive that the company that sends Vanguard numbers is sending a zero or that a program can do so from a Null value?

Yet you have the evidence right in front of you that this is entirely possible. Here is a link on why Null values cause problems in computer programming.

https://www.lucidchart.com/techblog/201 ... r-science/

I am not sure having your entire set of data that uses that value report as unavailable is preferable... It seems like the discontent and blame here would only be greater with even more missing data.
Last edited by abc132 on Sat Mar 18, 2023 9:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
abc132
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by abc132 »

RadAudit wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:59 am
abc132 wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:33 pm I don't think we even know if Vanguard did anything wrong. They could be receiving a bad value from the service that sends them prices and waiting for a fix from that company.
Actually, we do know Vanguard (or more specifically, someone) did something wrong. Grievously wrong.

They failed to have adequate quality controls on the documents they sent to the public that would have prevented this fiasco. As a result, they now have a situation where potentially thousands of people can look at this report and conclude (probably incorrectly) that the [inappropriate term deleted - mod mkc] staff at Vanguard don't know - don't care - jack about what they are doing with their money. (I personally don't hold that opinion.)

When folks see that a corporation doesn't have adequate control over the money entrusted to them they tend to become concerned. Especially if it is their money. (OK, what's a few million dollars among friends when it only took 40+ years accumulate that amount? Money you and your spouse have to depend on for the rest of your lives - or sleep out under a bridge.)

Stuff like that needs to be prevented or at least fixed and apologized for. It takes a long time for some folks to forget if it gets out of hand. OTOH, it might just all fade away and nothing happens.
We don't know if the people they hire sent them a zero value temporarily, so no we don't know for sure if Vanguard did anything wrong.
Clarky
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:10 pm

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by Clarky »

abc132 wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 9:16 pm
RadAudit wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:59 am
abc132 wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:33 pm I don't think we even know if Vanguard did anything wrong. They could be receiving a bad value from the service that sends them prices and waiting for a fix from that company.
Actually, we do know Vanguard (or more specifically, someone) did something wrong. Grievously wrong.

They failed to have adequate quality controls on the documents they sent to the public that would have prevented this fiasco. As a result, they now have a situation where potentially thousands of people can look at this report and conclude (probably incorrectly) that the [inappropriate term deleted - mod mkc] staff at Vanguard don't know - don't care - jack about what they are doing with their money. (I personally don't hold that opinion.)

When folks see that a corporation doesn't have adequate control over the money entrusted to them they tend to become concerned. Especially if it is their money. (OK, what's a few million dollars among friends when it only took 40+ years accumulate that amount? Money you and your spouse have to depend on for the rest of your lives - or sleep out under a bridge.)

Stuff like that needs to be prevented or at least fixed and apologized for. It takes a long time for some folks to forget if it gets out of hand. OTOH, it might just all fade away and nothing happens.
We don't know if the people they hire sent them a zero value temporarily, so no we don't know for sure if Vanguard did anything wrong.
And I don’t think it’s going to result in my spouse and me living under a bridge, no matter the cause of all this needless consternation… fiasco, grievously wrong, @#$&* Vanguard staff, inadequate controls, homelessness. Yikes. Find another broker is what I’d be doing if I had this kind of angst over this (although it probably wouldn’t take me long to have issues with whoever that turned out to be).
Topic Author
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:04 pm anybody want to post to vanguard's facebook/twitter page regarding this?
I didn't expect a reply to my e-mail over the weekend. :wink:
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
Topic Author
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

Clarky wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:11 pm And I don’t think it’s going to result in my spouse and me living under a bridge, no matter the cause of all this needless consternation… fiasco, grievously wrong, @#$&* Vanguard staff, inadequate controls, homelessness. Yikes. Find another broker is what I’d be doing if I had this kind of angst over this
I agree with you and the other thoughtful and calming replies from various members of the form. It probably isn't that big of a deal.

However, I do have a small difference of opinion concerning the importance of releasing to the public reports that purport to show the status of an investor's money in real time that may cause unnecessary concern. It just isn't good form.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
Clarky
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:10 pm

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by Clarky »

RadAudit wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:38 am
Clarky wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:11 pm And I don’t think it’s going to result in my spouse and me living under a bridge, no matter the cause of all this needless consternation… fiasco, grievously wrong, @#$&* Vanguard staff, inadequate controls, homelessness. Yikes. Find another broker is what I’d be doing if I had this kind of angst over this
I agree with you and the other thoughtful and calming replies from various members of the form. It probably isn't that big of a deal.

However, I do have a small difference of opinion concerning the importance of releasing to the public reports that purport to show the status of an investor's money in real time that may cause unnecessary concern. It just isn't good form.
I agree. The problem is it’s probably auto-generated, whether by Vanguard or a vendor -
Kinda like my last lab results. I had access to them for almost two weeks before my doctor bothered to let me know I may be pre-diabetic. Talk about bad form! :annoyed
Topic Author
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

Now to be fair the sector analysis did say something along the line of -

"This analysis only includes domestic stock holdings. Some funds labeled as domestic may have international holdings, so the full fund holding may not be included in this analysis."

I'm sure we'll all be relieved to know how little of consumer discretionary holdings are considered to be domestic.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 35307
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by grabiner »

I found the same errors. My REIT Index is 100% uncategorized (rather than being in the real estate sector), and neither Total Stock Market Index nor Value Factor ETF has any holdings in Consumer Discretionary.

And I also have a NaN error. I get a message that I might benefit by holding some percentage of my bonds in foreign bonds. The percentage that is currently in bonds is actually 0/0. (I do hold bonds, but I hold them in a non-Vanguard employer plan, so Portfolio Analysis doesn't see them.)

If Portfolio Analysis is working correctly, its messages are useful. They indicate deviations from the model portfolio, which are OK in your own portfolio if you do them deliberately. Thus, Portfolio Watch tells me correctly that I overweight real estate (REIT Index), small-cap, value, and emerging markets. This is how I design my portfolio, increasing my risk by overweighting riskier stock rather than by having more stock.
Wiki David Grabiner
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52215
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: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by nisiprius »

grabiner wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:21 pmAnd I also have a NaN error. I get a message that I might benefit by holding some percentage of my bonds in foreign bonds. The percentage that is currently in bonds is actually 0/0.
Did you see the percentage actually rendered onscreen as "NaN?" If so, that rules out the theory that the spurious "0%" values are really NaNs.
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.
Clarky
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:10 pm

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by Clarky »

I noticed this evening that the percentages for a couple of my funds are off in Morningstar by similar magnitudes. The plot thickens… I think we’re talking third party vendor perhaps?
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 35307
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by grabiner »

nisiprius wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 9:23 pm
grabiner wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:21 pmAnd I also have a NaN error. I get a message that I might benefit by holding some percentage of my bonds in foreign bonds. The percentage that is currently in bonds is actually 0/0.
Did you see the percentage actually rendered onscreen as "NaN?" If so, that rules out the theory that the spurious "0%" values are really NaNs.
The percentage is not rendered on my screen at all, but it is being treated as if it were a number. 0% of my portfolio is in domestic bonds, and 0% is in foreign bonds. Therefore, the actual percentage of my bonds which are foreign is NaN. And according to the IEEE standard, any comparison with NaN is false; in particular, it is not less than whatever Vanguard considers the minimum foreign bond allocation, and should not give a message if the stored value were actually zero.

NaN should never render onscreen, though; non-programmers won't understand it. As a similar example, I drive a hybrid car, which displays trip MPG. When I start the car, using only electricity, I have traveled 0 miles and used 0 gallons of gas, so my MPG is 0/0. The trip MPG is displayed as zero, not NaN. (And if I then move my car slowly, it has now gone some distance but still hasn't used any gas. My MPG becomes infinite, but the display maxes out at 199.9.)
Wiki David Grabiner
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52215
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: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by nisiprius »

grabiner wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:03 am ...NaN should never render onscreen, though; non-programmers won't understand it. As a similar example, I drive a hybrid car, which displays trip MPG. When I start the car, using only electricity, I have traveled 0 miles and used 0 gallons of gas, so my MPG is 0/0. The trip MPG is displayed as zero, not NaN. (And if I then move my car slowly, it has now gone some distance but still hasn't used any gas. My MPG becomes infinite, but the display maxes out at 199.9.)...
Absolutely true story: I remember arguing in elementary school about the batting average of a player who has never been at bat. Should it be 0.000 because they have never gotten a hit, or 1.000 because they have never failed to get one?

According to the dividend discount theory of stock value, NaN is the value of a stock that never pays dividends.
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
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

Thanks to all for offering delightful explanations of the possibilities that could have led to such a report. I still haven't gotten a reply from Vanguard but the week is yet young.

I'm more interested in what does it mean if the report is correct? 0% in US consumer discretionary in a index fund? How do you as a private investor manage to rearrange your portfolio to account for this, if you wanted to?
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
User avatar
retired@50
Posts: 12824
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:36 pm
Location: Living in the U.S.A.

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by retired@50 »

RadAudit wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:40 am I'm more interested in what does it mean if the report is correct? 0% in US consumer discretionary in a index fund? How do you as a private investor manage to rearrange your portfolio to account for this, if you wanted to?
It's not conceivable to me that 0% in consumer discretionary is correct - it has to be a reporting error of some kind.
Every fund currently showing 0% would have had to sell out of the tickers shown in the VCR consumer discretionary fund below.

Image

Regards,
If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell
Topic Author
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by RadAudit »

abc132 wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:27 pm They are moving some businesses from one category to another and the incorrect postings are almost certainly a result of companies being moved out of consumer discretionary. Target will now be in the same category as Walmart.

I suggest waiting a day or two and relaxing a bit when you see something temporarily incorrect.
You might be on to something. I saw something about the S&P reclassifying companies into / out of various sectors. Depending on computer programming for this report there may be some impact. Anyway, it may have been a busy last few days for the computer guys.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52215
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: Sector Weightings differ from the Market

Post by nisiprius »

No reply yet from Vanguard, and error not fixed, but I don't expect that. I'll be thrilled if they fix it within a month.

In one sense, if you assume that nobody actually acts on the information presented by Portfolio Watch--then this is just a cosmetic error. A very ugly cosmetic error.

On the other hand, a company reporting spurious numbers about one's personal account is a legitimate concern.

It is now almost two years since Livesoft started a thread:Vanguard Portfolio Watch has a new look [Calculations may be incorrect]

The supposed benefits of cloud native agile development ought to be put into the service of something more serious than bling.
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.
Post Reply