needed: a next generation of financial...

NEEDED: A Next Generation of Financial Advisor

By Mitchell M. Maynard, Analyst

Precision Investment Management & Premium Producers Group, LLC

April 11, 2007

P.O. Box 141 Orange, CA 92856

www.precisioninvestmentmanagement.com

A Mitchell M. Maynard White Paper

2 NEEDED: Next Generation of Financial Advisor | © Copyright 2007 Precision Investment Management

Contents

The Need for a New Breed of Financial Advisor empowered with new tools .............................................. 3

Proper Financial Modeling Tools are virtually non‐existent ......................................................................... 3

Current Portfolio Optimization Tools and Monte Carlo Simulation Tools .................................................... 4

The Next Generation of Financial Software .................................................................................................. 6

Focus is on Financial Modeling not a Singular Result ............................................................................... 7

The Retirement Plan modeling process for a sample client with the new generation of software ......... 8

Next‐generation Asset Management: Variance Rebalancing ................................................................... 9

Implementing Financial Modeling and Variance Rebalancing .................................................................... 13

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 14



The Need for a New Breed of Financial Advisor empowered with new tools

The current financial planning industry needs to evolve or die. The current tools and techniques implemented for retirees and pre‐retirees are antiquated and the previous rounds of “planning” software are often just sales schemes in disguise. Let’s look at the evolution of planning tools that have lead to the creation of some true next‐generation finance software.

Proper Financial Modeling Tools are virtually nonexistent How did financial analysis get here? I can’t help but think about my grandparents (at the

time of this writing, I am 40 years of age) and their retirement. People that were the age of majority during the Great Depression of the 1930’s and who worked for companies after World War II tended to remain with the same employer their entire adult lives and then retire with a pension. These individuals knew when they retired they would have stable retirement income from company pensions and Social Security. Any additional savings most likely went into their local bank in the form of a Certificate of Deposit. I recall my grandparents renewing their CD’s at 16% interest rates. They happened to retire during the highest interest rate environment in the twentieth century. For that generation, planning their retirement was simple. They simply budgeted their stable retirement income from the company pension and Social Security, and their federally‐insured CD interest income was a plus. Their planning responsibilities were really placed on the shoulders of the employer and the government.

Enter the Baby Boom generation. People retiring today are living in an entirely different world. First, company pensions (defined benefit plans) are almost extinct, having made way to the 401k plan. This has shifted the responsibility of retirement planning from the employer and government to the employee. Unfortunately, the individual has no skills at retirement planning and is attempting to do the job formerly performed by highly educated professionals working with company pension plans. Although the government has instituted rules for companies to educate their employees regarding their retirement plan investment options, this burden usually falls to the human resources department (the same people responsible for hiring and conflict resolution). Does this make sense to you? This generation of individuals preparing for retirement has a complex job to do and neither the skills or the assistance to do the job correctly. Many of them rely on financial advisors to assist them in their planning endeavors, but for many their trust is unfortunately misplaced.

The financial advisory industry is wrought with flaws; from inherent conflicts of interest

to blatant misrepresentation of services rendered. Having seen the industry in action for almost 20 years, I have realized that the greatest problem with the industry is that it is driven by product sales. This is a problem of gargantuan proportion.



In the first place, financial institutions provide the best in compensation to those who sell the most, not those who provide the best service. Secondly, since the focus of the company is sales, salespeople are hired where analytical people should be. If you have ever known a successful salesperson, you probably found them to be long on action and short on contemplation. Many of these people are goal oriented and their goal is on sales and not on their personal education or implementation of sound financial planning. Thirdly, if the saying “success breeds success” applies, the newcomers to the industry look up to those with the largest sales and not the best financial planning skills. This is not what the largest group of retirees needs from the financial planning industry.

What retirees need from the financial planning industry are professionals educated in

financial planning and financial modeling. Professionals that think first of their clients (who are entrusting them with their futures) will take steps to educate themselves to provide the services that retirees need. Instead, there has been a growing momentum for “retirement planning” that is just a regurgitation of the inadequate tools of the past. Many of the latest tools are simply referred to as “Bucket Planning” or “Income Ladder” programs. In a 40 page white paper I wrote, I examined the flaws with such programs (they have higher risk and less return) but financial advisors still gravitate to these programs. Why? Simply put: they make promises that are easy to sell. They are easy to sell because they promise over‐simplified results that appeal to the retiree, always with successful outcomes that they want to see. The greatest flaw to these programs is their use of average rates of return. It seems the industry has learned only one thing; that by keeping things unrealistically simple, it increases sales of products promising unrealistic results by uneducated sales people.

Current Portfolio Optimization Tools and Monte Carlo Simulation Tools

In the early 1980s there were simple hand‐held calculators that provided mechanisms for simple interest calculations to answer questions regarding inflow or outflow goals. For example: How much would I have in 20 years if I earned 8% annually and deposited $2,000 a year? Or: How much would I have if I withdrew $20,000 annually from $200,000 for 10 years while earning 7% annually? In the early 1990s (subsequent to the Nobel Prize for economics being awarded to the contributors of Modern Portfolio Theory), a new breed of software hit the industry and it implemented Harry Markowitz’s Mean Variance Optimization. Many advisors (me included) thought they had found the Holy Grail of the portfolio designing process that would lead to return predictions that improved financial planning results. However, along with this new tool came a couple of complications.

First, Mean Variance Optimization results in 2‐dimensional measurements (as opposed

to a single‐dimensional measurement, Average Annual Returns): Returns or mean and Risk or Standard Deviation.



Second, what period of history should be used for the optimization inputs? Before this simple‐to‐use portfolio optimization tool, the only people utilizing this strategy were those educated in advanced finance theory. Like children playing with fire, many of the financial advisors attempting to apply Mean Variance Optimization got burned and their clients paid. When the uneducated advisors saw their planning break down, they placed the blame on MPT.

You may recall that at the same time this round of software was being introduced, the

utilization of the ‘risk tolerance questionnaire’ became an integral part of the planning process. This measure was used as a simplistic measurement of downside loss acceptance. For example, if the portfolio optimization process produced a portfolio with a 5% mean and a 10% standard deviation, a client with a risk aversion below ‐5% would find the portfolio acceptable. However, most of this software only measured risk as 1 standard deviation which only accounts for explaining 68% of the potential risk. Whereas, if 2 standard deviations where used (accounting for 95% of variance of returns), the loss potential of the optimized portfolio would be ‐15%. This would be unacceptable! The worst of it is that the financial planning assumptions still used constant rates of returns for their projections.

In the late 1990s Monte Carlo Simulation tools reached the investment advisory

community. While the introduction of Monte Carlo Simulations was a step in the right direction, many of the implementations were incorrect. Monte Carlo Simulation is a process of modeling a variety of conditions with randomized variables. For example, if an annual return could be 1, 2, or 3 percent, a computer would randomly select one of the 3 numbers. The purpose of Monte Carlo Simulation is to model potential results based on uncertain future conditions. Of the popular tools that implement Monte Carlo Simulations, many of them have a distinct flaw in their design: using actual historical returns as the sole pool of selectable returns. The flawed thinking is that in a Monte Carlo Simulation, forecasting the future by using actual historical returns implies that the future (although randomizing the sequence of returns) will emulate the exact returns of the past ‐ which is virtually impossible to occur.

Unfortunately, many of the financial planning solutions that incorporate Monte Carlo

Simulations have both inadequate portfolio design and modeling tools. Since the returns are the primary component being randomized, inadequate portfolio return assumptions contribute to Monte Carlo Simulations that are of a ‘sand–like’ foundation. The primary flaws of the common portfolio modeling tools are the following: 1. Simple assumptions that mutual funds within a category (i.e. a Large Cap mutual fund represented by the S&P 500) are represented by their benchmark in analysis. For example Fidelity’s Magellan fund is typically represented by the S&P 500 for historical analysis. The flaw of this process is that Fidelity’s Magellan has underperformed the S&P 500 as measured by the last 3 years’ Alpha. Many advisors have seen the research that 80% of actively managed mutual funds underperform their relative benchmark indexes. Sometimes this underperformance can be substantial. As of this writing the Alpha of the Fidelity Magellan fund is ‐2.81%, which means



that it averaged an annual relative return underperformance of ‐2.81%. This should be unacceptable to advisors who are cognizant of this flaw. 2. Using actual historical performance of mutual funds and any other managed investment (the same could be said of a stock because a company is managed by individuals who control the direction of the company’s business endeavors) is flawed because a management change undermines the quality of the forecasting results. I realize that this assertion seems unconventional but if you think it through you will realize that management companies all compete with a benchmark, and as the management changes so does the subjective element of management style. To use the Fidelity Magellan example from above, if we were to use historical performance of the fund from the 1980s (when Peter Lynch ran the fund) it would be improper since Peter Lynch outperformed against the S&P 500 and the current manager has underperformed. If we used historical returns from the 1980s for predictive analysis we would be working with flawed assumptions, since we would be over estimating relative performance of the current manager. 3. A third basic flaw that is applicable to both strategies above is the use of the same time period for all investments being analyzed. When preparing analysis for a forecasting model it is not logical to constrain all investments to an identical historical dataset. This is because historical time periods possess inherent biases and anomalies of a certain investment’s performance. For example, if we were to use the 1970s for our analysis because stock index activity is erratic and matched our forecast, there would be a bias towards interest rate vehicles, since inflation was rampant during that time period. If we didn’t believe that interest rates would not be similar in the future, it would be illogical to constrain our analysis techniques to this period. A better way is to allow the financial advisor to select the 1970’s dataset for stocks and another historical dataset for interest rate vehicles, etc.

The Next Generation of Financial Software What should the next step in financial planning evolution be? A new generation of

software. A new breed of financial advisor needs to emerge; one trained not only in financial planning but financial modeling. Advisors need to see financial planning as a process of structuring client assets in the most appropriate entities and then financial modeling becomes structuring client assets in the most appropriate investments. Both processes are required and recurring. The new generation of software provides a set of tools that assist a financial advisor in modeling client financial plans. Clients have three primary concerns:

1. Deposits 2. Withdrawals 3. Portfolio Performance



A financial advisor can perform financial planning functions to determine the amount of deposits that should be contributed to the retirement fund and the amount of withdrawals to be taken from the retirement fund when retirement is started. From this point, financial modeling is required. Since investments don’t create consistent and predictable returns, financial modeling is the process of simulating possible outcomes of investment combinations and how they affect the client’s retirement goals. The new generation of software is a nimble tool for modeling portfolios under a number of historical performance conditions; allowing the advisor to mix and match historical time periods with forecasts for each index type. The new generation of software provides unprecedented flexibility by providing tools for a financial advisor to enter any series of annual returns they choose as an index. This allows the advisor to have no limitations on what they can analyze.

The new generation of software: The true advantage. If you don’t realize it yet, clients preparing for retirement need more from their financial advisors than the many simplistic planning techniques currently being employed. I have been amazed to find that the retirement planning industry is reverting to the use of average returns and separating investments for liquidation. This is a step in the wrong direction; clients need sophistication and not simplification.

Focus is on Financial Modeling not a Singular Result Now we can begin our retirement modeling… In this section, we will evaluate the retirement plan modeling process with the new

generation of software. We can choose two portfolios that will be compared (at first we can use the existing portfolio over two different time periods and then second we can compare the current portfolio with the alternate portfolio). Next is the opportunity to select any time period (as long as the necessary data is available) for each index that the portfolio models are based on. We can select the time periods with ascending or descending yearly orders. This allows us to create the market conditions that we wish to test.

For example, we should be able to use stock index activity over the 1970s to model a

Bearish market and the 1980s for a Bullish market. In both cases we will use the last 10 years for bond and interest rate indexes reversed into a descending order (because our forecast for interest rates assumes they will rise in the amount that they decreased over the last 10 years). The next step is to enter the client’s inflows and outflows from the Retirement Fund. Now we can execute our analysis and review the modeled account values, returns and resulting Monte Carlo Simulations. A comprehensive report demonstrates the results of the analysis for the client. Highlights of the report are annual account values for each scenario (used to evaluate the client’s acceptance of risk) and Monte Carlo Simulations that result in estimating probabilities of success.

Once the current portfolio has been analyzed, we can select the alternate portfolio we

have developed and then select the index time periods. We can also adjust the Retirement



Fund inflows and outflows to accommodate changes in the portfolio design i.e., use of taxable vs. tax free. Then we can run the analysis to determine the potential improvement on the probabilities of providing for a successful retirement within acceptable risk tolerances.

The new generation of software provides solutions for assigning the managed

investments to either an index or using historical data, allowing an advisor to create a Synthetic Investment Model for the investment. A Synthetic Investment Model allows an advisor to not only assign the managed investment to an index but then it allows you to apply an Alpha value to the index performance. The ability to apply Alpha measures to the index activity allows an advisor to synthesize the current management over a variety of historical market conditions. The resulting return performance can be used in Monte Carlo analysis of the retirement plan conditions. The Monte Carlo Simulation with the new generation of software is based on a range of returns using 2 standard deviations around the mean (as measured by the internal rate of return). The benefit of this application is that the boundaries of the random number selection for annual returns are based on the variability of the resulting returns from the financial modeling.

The use of the new generation of software allows a financial advisor to perform the

service that their clients are expecting them to do: Competent financial analysis with educated forecasts.

The Retirement Plan modeling process for a sample client with the new generation of software

A client with a concern that their retirement savings will go the distance comes to your office for assistance. They have a portfolio of mutual funds in their former employer’s 401k plan and similar investments in IRAs that they have accumulated over their working years. After gathering their investment information and retirement income goals, you let them know you can meet in a week and at that time you will have analyzed their current portfolio under a number of market conditions and propose alternative portfolios that may provide a higher probability of successfully providing for their retirement.

Our first step is to create models for each of the client’s investments. In this case we will

consider that all investments are all mutual funds. So for all mutual funds with portfolio managers that have changed over the year, we need to look up the Alpha and Beta for each mutual fund. For mutual funds with constant managers we can gather their annual returns. Once we have this information, we can begin the process of creating our models. We assign Alpha, Beta and our forecasted Risk Free Rate. For models based on the actual security returns, we simply apply a Beta of 1 and 0% for both Alpha and Risk Free.

Our final step before we begin retirement modeling is to create a ‘portfolio’

representing all the client’s investments. We can create also create an alternate portfolio that includes additional investments or replaces various investments with alternates. Now the



software program can analyze the data and display the results of the modeling, for educated decision making that has used both historical data and Monte Carlo simulation to their fullest.

Nextgeneration Asset Management: Variance Rebalancing In the years that I have been working with the financial planning industry, I have found

that many financial advisors have an identity crisis. For the most part, if you were to ask a financial planner “What do you do for your clients?” they would be hard pressed for a concise answer. This is not because of the complexity of their services; it is because they themselves don’t know. What they do know is where their revenue comes from: commissions and/or fees. I submit that even within this subcategory of their business, many are unsure of the services they provide and the value they offer. I have been very surprised to find that many financial advisors justify their annual fee revenue for nothing more than (as I like to refer to it) “Reaching for the Stars”. They seem to ignore the academic research that demonstrates the lack of value provided by active managers (studies show 80% of actively managed funds don’t outperform indexes) and exchange their annual fee revenue for a vain attempt to select superior active managers.

I submit that the financial planners providing retirement planning services must focus

on the modeling process and provide asset management services that eliminate unsystematic risks so as to increase the confidence of the modeling results. In order to provide this service, new asset management product structures based on indexing must be offered. A disciplined program of variance rebalancing answers the call. It provides index‐based asset management of ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) with variance rebalancing (a process of rebalancing portfolio asset allocation based on a measure of askew). Exchange Traded Funds provide advisors access to the markets in real time. Current access to investment products based on indexes is provided by mutual fund structures that only allow access to the markets at the end of the trading day. This has been very restrictive for asset managers whose focus is on maintaining proper asset allocation (this focus is on maintaining risk, since risk is the primary concern of retirement planning clients).

The next‐generation program of Variance Rebalancing leverages the real time access to

the markets to perform real time variance‐based asset allocation rebalancing. It utilizes a computer based modeling program to monitor portfolios for the need to rebalance portfolios every minute of the trading day. Each time a portfolio is determined to be askew, the program calculates the amount of ETF shares required to be bought and sold to return the portfolio to its proper asset allocation model percentages.

Through a unique technological advancement, cost efficiencies afforded to separately

managed accounts and mutual funds can now be extended to these managed accounts. ETF rebalancing transactions expenses are calculated at an omnibus level. This means that all clients are treated equally when it comes to sharing in the rebalancing costs and that economies of scale reduce the individual’s share.



I conducted a study of the relative performance and return enhancements offered by the variance rebalancing as compared to annual rebalancing and “Buy and Hold”. To see the portfolio construction, see the image Figure 1 below. Figure 1

As you can see the portfolio is allocated 65% to equities, 20% to Bonds, 10% to Real Estate and 5% to Cash. The portfolio allocation is represented by index based ETFs, see below: Figure 2

Asset Class Allocation Ticker Description

Equities 65% DGT Dow Jones Global Titans

Bonds 20% AGG Lehman Bros. Aggregate Bond Index

Real Estate 10% RWR streetTRACKS DJ Wilshire REIT

Cash 5% N/A 3 month CD Rates as indicated by the Federal Reserve

Rebalancing is triggered each time an asset class becomes askew by more than the percentage noted above in Figure 1. For further clarification, 1% variance of askew is equal to an absolute dollar value of the relative aggregate account value. For example, if the total account value is $10,000,000 and the Cash value grows to a value greater than $550,000, a rebalancing is triggered. In addition, if a rebalancing is triggered in the course of a trading day, a rebalancing will not be triggered again until the next trading day. Therefore a rebalancing can only be triggered once a day. Based on these criteria, an analysis of minute‐by‐minute pricing of the ETFs listed in Figure 2 above, rebalancing activity would have been triggered from January 1, 2004 – December 31, 2006 as shown in Figure 3 below.



Figure 3 Date Time DGT AGG RWR

3/10/2004 11:17 AM 1674 38 ‐1314

3/22/2004 9:58 AM 1673 ‐572 ‐448

4/5/2004 11:54 AM ‐1662 830 908

4/13/2004 10:01 AM ‐1074 ‐238 2204

7/2/2004 9:30 AM 1720 392 ‐1864

8/6/2004 9:53 AM 1683 ‐532 ‐456

10/25/2004 9:30 AM 1749 127 ‐1260

11/4/2004 2:54 PM ‐1695 861 ‐24

2/28/2005 2:10 PM ‐1683 738 824

3/31/2005 9:30 AM 1391 ‐177 ‐112

5/13/2005 2:04 PM 1716 ‐172 ‐1204

7/8/2005 9:30 AM 1312 398 ‐1028

8/9/2005 9:30 AM ‐1761 596 859

9/28/2005 9:30 AM 1188 ‐7 ‐306

12/29/2005 9:30 AM 685 614 ‐354

3/16/2006 10:05 AM 216 1120 ‐1503

4/7/2006 9:30 AM ‐91 209 597

6/13/2006 10:45 AM 1773 ‐642 ‐155

6/28/2006 9:31 AM ‐29 399 287

8/11/2006 9:30 AM ‐2247 1359 110

11/21/2006 11:32 AM 817 790 ‐1463

As you can see from the trading activity above in Figure 3, there were rebalancing

triggers throughout each year that span the trading days. These opportunities could not be enacted within the current mutual fund supermarkets that are used by many financial planners. What are the results? Does Variance Rebalancing work? Before we discuss the results, let’s discuss the type of market activity used for the analysis. The time period is 2004, 2005 and 2006. The reason for this time period is because the available data for minute by minute pricing of ETFs is limited. I was able to compile minute by minute pricing for the ETFs used in the study for these 3 years. It just so happens that over this time period each year had a positive return.

Please see the table Figure 4 below:



Figure 4

One of the benefits to diversification is the shifting of assets to under performing asset

classes that will provide higher returns in the future. This force is called regression to the mean. Rebalancing is a natural function of the “Buy Low” “Sell High” methodology implemented within a diversified portfolio. However, diversification is only offered by portfolios with asset classes without high correlations. Even though this portfolio of asset classes historically doesn’t have high correlations, during this 3 year period of analysis they do. I would expect that during periods of lower correlation, the benefits of variance rebalancing will be leveraged. Below are a couple of tables that provide the results of the performance analysis of:

1. ‘Buy N Hold’ (simple growth of each initial investment amount by the total return of each asset class). 2. Annual Rebalancing (each asset class is rebalanced at the end of each year). 3. Variance Rebalancing (each asset class is rebalanced when triggered by an asset classes’ exceeding askew tolerances)

Measuring performance cannot be evaluated solely on return. Risk must also be measured to develop complete picture of the asset management performance. As you can see below in Figure 5, although the “Buy N Hold” and Annual Rebalancing discipline has a higher annualized rate of return, they carry with them high rates of risk (as measured by annual standard deviation). Therefore it is important that we measure the return performance with risk adjusted terms. Figure 5

In Figure 6 below, we can see a table of the relative performance numbers. The results show that Variance Rebalancing earned 92.79% of the return of “Buy N Hold” while limiting the risk to only 83.06%. And, Variance Rebalancing earned 95.76% of the return of the Annual Rebalancing while limiting the risk to only 86.87%.



Figure 6

So ‐ What can we conclude about Variance Rebalancing? We can conclude that Variance Rebalancing provides more efficient risk adjusted returns. Therefore, the portfolio managed with Variance Rebalancing is the preferable discipline. For more information about the merits of variance based rebalancing see the links below:

• A study conducted by a group at MIT which analyzes the rebalancing process and

proposes various optimal rebalancing methods. http://ssg.mit.edu/~waltsun/docs/rebalancingSSRN05.pdf

• A paper by Bernstein Global Wealth Management is a unit of AllianceBernstein

L.P. that discusses the psychology of rebalancing and proposes that amounts of variance askew are unique to the portfolio’s asset classes. https://www.bernstein.com/CmsObjectPC/pdfs/BJ_SP04_Rebalancing.pdf

Implementing Financial Modeling and Variance Rebalancing At this point, I believe that it is important to discuss the expectations of the clients that

financial advisors serve. For me, I am concerned that financial advisors and their clients are disconnected in their goals. I believe that financial advisory clients expect their financial advisor to assist them in preparing for and implementing their financial planning objectives. They expect their financial advisor to analyze their goals and provide them with a model portfolio that can provide them the greatest chance of being successful. However, financial advisors are without the tools to provide the services their clients need. They are bogged down with filling out worthless questionnaires that provide little to no insight about the client’s goals, objectives and tolerance for risk; matching the answers with a mythical “Optimal Portfolio” using skewed historical datasets to create an “Efficient Frontier” of portfolios. To make matters worse, they introduce unsystematic risks into their implementation of the portfolio designs by using active managers in replacement of indexes (supposedly finding managers with positive alphas), or by using historical data based on active manager performance when the managers have changed.

This process is exacerbated by financial planning that is based solely on constant

average return assumptions. If/when Monte Carlo Simulations are applied, they are generally applied inadequately. Many Monte Carlo Models are flawed with the same inherent skewed datasets, making the entire process of meeting with a financial advisor little more than an exercise in futility.



I submit that a financial advisor, empowered with the new generation of software and its accompanying variance rebalancing program, can provide the financial modeling and portfolio design/implementation that eliminates unsystematic risk.

However, the financial advisor still needs to realize that he is a planner/modeler. Portfolios are designed for diversification and risk management. With the next‐

generation variance rebalancing program, advisors can use pre‐designed portfolios or design their own asset allocation models. This allows a financial advisor the freedom to implement their own asset allocation models for a group of clients while the program monitors for variance based rebalancing opportunities. The financial advisor is now free to focus on the financial planning modeling process with their clients, while generating their performance reports and portfolio snapshots from the software.

• To learn more about “The New Generation of Financial Software”, please visit:

http://mcppremium.com/pro

• To see an implementation of an actual “Variance Rebalancing” program, please visit: http://precisioninvestmentmanagement.com

Summary The Baby Boom generation needs a new breed of financial advisor, one who can provide

the financial and retirement modeling that should be conducted before and during retirement. The current landscape of tools and services for financial advisors whose focus is on meeting the modeling needs of their clients is inadequate. Poor implementations of the Nobel Prize‐winning processes of Modern Portfolio Theory are the primary cause of an advisor’s overly optimistic expectations. And instead of financial advisors improving their implementations, they seem to have reverted back to the simplistic financial planning techniques of their predecessors; namely a heavy reliance on the use of average rate of returns.

While I cannot speak for any other financial‐analyst‐turned‐software‐developer like me, I will remain dedicated to providing the training and tools needed to meet the needs of the Baby Boomers; the first modern generation of retirees who will be responsible for managing their own retirement accounts for the majority of their retirement income needs. __________

A brief biography of Mitchell Maynard can be read at http://premiumproducersgroup.com/bio_mm.htm . He can be reached by email at [email protected] .

needed: a next generation of financial...

Documents