Munger

Came across an interesting and (in my opinion) fair critique of Buffett. Do others agree with me? If not, how do they reconcile the two Buffetts... More relevant to investing, what does Buffett's Fortune essay (i'm sure all have read but must read as a refresher as we deal with the mania of QE) suggest for future stock returns over the long term (which presumably is the focus of Buffett disciples) and the current margin of safety? Here is my take based on Buffett's own words -- which argue that large interest rate changes overwhelm all other variables in determining future stock market returns, with the other the primary variable being corporate profit growth. Let's take the next 17 years, an interval Buffett cited in the Fortune essay. With interest rates having DECLINED further since Buffett wrote the essay, would seem even more likely that his prediction for much higher interest rates in the future is almost certain over the long term. Further, the ridiculous Fed policy is likely to stoke inflation at some point over the long term, which will slow corporate profit growth for almost all businesses and actually reduce corporate profits for many... So based on Buffett's outstanding Fortune essay on stock market returns (again a must read), the only conclusion can be that we are still headed for the mother of all bear markets. I can only disgustingly laugh when I see the likes of Bill Miller and David Tepper shout to the masses that this is a once in a generation time to buy stocks in an effort to talk their book for short term gains... As Buffett has noted repeated, interest rates are to investing as gravity is to physics -- the laws always hold true... Not to say you can't make money during this period, but pick your spots carefully and demand a high margin of safety. Link to the Buffett Fortune essay: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/11/22/269071/# Buffett critique -- worth a read THE TEMPTATION OF ST. WARREN - THE SEQUEL by David B. Collum Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology Cornell University January 29, 2009 As the secular bear market that began in 2000 continues, the list of true financial geniuses grows short whereas the rogues’ gallery grows longer. Whether we are talking about criminals--“A Tale of Two Bernies”--or simply discredited faux visionaries such as Alan Greenspan, is there anybody left to fall from grace? But, as Obi Won Kenobe said in Star Wars when it looked like Luke had been lost to the Dark Side, “There is another.” At this point, the CNBC camera pans over to the most famous investor of all time--the legendary Warren Buffett. Buffett may not be the last Jedi Knight, but his record argues to the contrary. Several months ago Warren Buffett gave the investment community a shot of crystal meth by pronouncing with the succinctness of a bumper sticker that he was Bullish on America and was 100% invested in deeply valued equities within his personal trust fund. The excitement was palpable; you would think that Detroit won a Superbowl or Paris Hilton garnered a Nobel Prize. Let us take a breath and consider Buffett’s move. His trust fund totals $500 million--a fortune to most of us but <3% of his total wealth. Moving Berkshire Hathaway to 100% equities would have been the ultimate Texas Hold’em all-in play. Did fiduciary responsibility to shareholders prevent him from such a move? More to the point, onlookers who can resist gulping down Wall Street’s Kool-Aid may have sensed a disconnect between Buffett’s public persona and his actions as an investor. Through most of his career, Buffett was inscrutable, offering tiny nuggets of wisdom embedded in highly coveted annual reports. His performances on the public stage, however, have mutated into more of a cheerleader than thoughtful market analyst. Surely nobody would deny him a few victory laps, but his camera shyness is now on a par with that of Chuck Schumer. He certainly has the right to say anything he wishes within the constraints imposed by Federal statutes--few remain and nobody really cares about them anyway--but his utterances cause billions of dollars to mobilize into action. While wrestling with the two sides of Warren Buffett and whether his bullishness is well founded, an article penned 17 years ago by Michael Lewis of “Liar’s Poker” fame came across my desk. In The Temptation of St. Warren, Lewis painted a vivid picture of an egotistical financial carnivore seated at the very top of the food chain--a world-class stockjobber--cloaked by a highly deceptive country boy shtick. It’s quite a read and surely took guts to publish. Lewis’s challenge to Buffett’s sincerity may seem blasphemous to devoted Buffettologists, but to challenge his judgment as an investor would be madness. Who could possibly question his bullishness on US equities? What long-term investor could resist this clarion call to charge into US equities? There is in fact one man with the qualifications--the gravitas--to declare Warren Buffett’s bullishness misplaced. That man is Warren Buffett. In a 1999 editorial for Fortune Magazine, Buffett revealed fundamental tenets of investing by comparing the secular bear market of 1964-81 with the secular bull market of 1981-1999. In a brilliantly simple analysis, he concluded that the two dichotomous secular moves did not emanate from differential economic growth: the inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) in the bear market exceeded that in the secular bull market. He also handily dismissed the role of transformational technologies by noting revolutionary changes are brutally costly, resulting in mediocre returns for buy-and-hold investors. Providing what seemed like the ultimate nugget of wisdom, Buffett attributed the difference in the bull and bear markets to changes in interest rates on long-term government bonds. Long-term rates rose from 4% to 15% during the bear market, forcing very large contractions of price-earnings (p/e) ratios on equities. Those same rates dropped from 15% to 5% during the secular bull market, allowing for substantial expansions of price-earnings ratios. The contraction versus expansion of p/e ratios to match the changes in bond yields accounts for more than an order of magnitude difference in performance--a ten bagger to use Peter Lynch’s nomenclature. Buffett’s case was simple and compelling. The battle lines have been drawn. Warren Buffett circa 1999 argued that you simply couldn’t be bullish in the face of rising long-term interest rates. The headwinds would be too great. Warren Buffett circa 2008 declared that he was unabashedly bullish with yields on 30-year treasuries hovering around 3%. Nobody could possibly believe that interest rates will hold steady at these levels over the long haul. It seems, therefore, that one of the two most famous investors of all time--circa 1999 Buffett or circa 2008 Buffett--will be proven wrong. Billions of dollars have been bet on the new, more camera friendly, Buffett. My money is on the time-tested earlier model. I’m bullish on America too, but not on US equities. I suspect that the end of the ongoing secular bear market in equities will witness the end of the deification bubble as well. I’ll concede that Buffett is a brilliant investor, the most successful of the twentieth century, the last Jedi Knight, but I draw the line there. I think he blew this call, and, if Michael Lewis is correct, he may even know it.

This makes no sense to me, can you please explain your reasoning ? If hyperinflation hits, cash will be worthless. Why would you hold cash in a hyperinflationary scenario ? It makes sense to hold real assets during hyperinflation - commodities, real estate, stocks (part ownership of real assets in companies). While clearly a risk, I chose not to speculate on a hyperinflationary scenario. I believe the Fed policy is creating deeper structural problems that could have grave consequences down the road but I'm not convinced hyperinflation is the definite result -- see Japan. And if true hyperinflation takes hold, all will be screwed -- those believing that buying commodities (especially ETFs), real estate, and stocks will protect them from the adverse consequences of hyperinflation are living in the land of wishful thinking...make no mistake -- society, rule of law, property rights will all crumble for some period...see Weimar Germany. So I see it as pointless to hedge against hyperinflation as an investment strategy. If you believe hyperinflation is certain, go buy productive farmland with its own water supply (as Michael Burry as done) so you can feed/protect yourself and possibly use the surplus as barter -- something I've considered but not from the perspecitive of an investment in which I expect to get an economic return in the tradtional sense. This is a huge assumption. With high unemployment, there's a good chance that salaries won't match inflation rates. However, if currency gets debased 10x, I don't think salary would remain unchanged, it will be more like 8x. Consumer prices would go up 10x, but salary rises only 8x. Result ? Less discretionary spending, lower asset prices, lower standard of living. Earnings and hence, share prices will drop in absolute terms, but measured against currency (which was devalued 10x), it will still be much higher. Wouldn't it ? In the scenario of a currency debasement (caused by a run on the dollar), it is most definitely not a huge assumption that wages would remain unchanged. Under a 10x currency debasement, chaos will unfold...unemployment will spike, wages will stay flat at best... Earnings and hence, share prices will drop in absolute terms, but measured against currency (which was devalued 10x), it will still be much higher. Wouldn't it ? No I agree with others -- we've exhausted this topic for the time being...let's move on

Just my humble opinion but should have added that I think Cardboard's most recent post on this thread is outstanding.

Tradevestor -- excellent questions and I'm not sure I have the answers but here are my thoughts. 1. Currently, there are two main, opposing macro events. A rapidly de-leveraging credit bubble (deflationary), and QE2 (inflationary). Eventually, whether we will have deflation or inflation will depend on the difference in magnitude of these two. I believe that deflationary spiral has not played out yet, and there's still more time before housing market stabilizes. That said, I am seeing the effects of inflation in the commodities and consumer market. So, maybe, these forces are affecting different segments differently. Very much agree with everything above. In short, would just add the money supply is contracting (which is deflationary) but the Fed hopes to offset with QE. Can the Fed micromanage the inflation rate -- personally, I think highly unlikely if not impossible. As Grant has noted, there is a very high likelihood that the macro inputs into the Fed's models are not even accurate -- in fact, it is almost certain. The experience with Japan suggests QE won't work -- as the real Munger emphasized in the Univ of Michigan Q&A, Japan tried every fiscal and monetary trick in the book and it didn't work. But Bernanke increasingly seems an ideological madman and if pushes the envelope too far, he will turn the US into a banana republic, with all asset prices getting destroyed and society as we know it today, completely falling apart. Buffet said as much with Carol -- "we are on a path that you don't want to continue on much longer," which he likened to Munger's frequent quip "just tell me where I'm going to die and I won't go there." I'm hoping Bernanke is just aggressive in his rhetoric but not in actual policy because the risk are enormous -- no one knows the actual tipping point for hyperinflation. So I chose to have a fairly large holding of cash rather than buy stocks as a speculative hedge against massive currency debasement. If I find great companies trading a valuation that offers a high margin of safety, I will buy regardless of the macro. I am almost certain that if true inflation takes hold, stock valuations will ultimately take a serious tumble from current levels. And if we experience an extended period of deflation, I am also almost certain stock valuations will ultimately take a serious tumble from current levels. In the interim, anything can happen as the Fed tries to interfere with and distort the market, which is why I have no short positions. Further, the Fed's policy will only be successful if consumers borrow more and spend more, which just kicks the can down the road, is ultimately unsustainable, and doesn't address the root of the problem -- too much debt. Inflation triggered by currency debasement (i.e., a run on the dollar) would appear disastrous for the average family and consequently society, as I address below. 2. In an inflationary environment, the prices of everything goes up as currency is devalued. Wouldn't this raise the (relative) price of the book values (comprised of real assets) of companies ? Wouldn't the stock price reflect that ? Possible but here is a question -- with real unemployment around 20%, there is zero evidence that inflation triggered by a currency debasement will lead to a rise in wages. Let's think this through but note that this is complete speculation on my part -- nevertheless, here goes...if the currency gets meaningfully debased and the price of everything goes up while salaries remain unchanged -- the cost of living will then consume more than the average wage. In this scenario, consumers and companies would be trying to sell hard assets to cover the cost of living (cost of business), which begs the question of who will buy these assets at inflated prices...there is a reasonable scenario that hard asset prices fall not increase when inflation is triggered by currency debasement. Separately -- remember that virtually all entitlement obligations (pensions, SS, medicare, medicaid etc) are currently indexed to inflation -- so Fed stoked inflation doesn't remove the vast majority of the debt burden overhanging the US economy. The one obvious benefit of currency debasement -- the US gov't could theoretically more easily pay off foreign debt, which assumes China doesn't dump the debt when they realize the Fed is trying to debase the currency. Myth, my man -- honestly appreciate the thoughtful response, some of which I agree with but most of which I don't. We both want to do well -- just seem to have different perspectives/thoughts on the issues. As you noted, we could go round and round... So, let's respectfully move on and see how all of this plays out. If I get any great ideas, I'll certainly post on the board. Best.

Myth -- happy to move on but note most of my most recent posts have been in response to absurd comments like the one I will now address. Bingo. That MOS doesn't *ever* come from the macro economy. That's the point. This comment is absurd as it doesn't relate to anything previously discussed -- the person is living in their own world. As evidenced by the origination of this thread, Buffet does pay attention to macro risk -- he wrote a lengthy and incredibly insightful essay on the impact of inflation (a macro factor) on equity returns. Macro risks are among the many that must be considered when determining the required margin of safety. Moving on to Myth's comments -- I just plain disagree, in the most respectful way possible. Grant is an intelligent man but has not proven much of an investor. I've been a long time subscriber and he is insightful and I have learned a lot about the history of finance and markets but I have rarely walked away with a great investment idea. Note Grant long argued for a booming and robust recovery from the current recession -- not such a great call. Cardboard, I dont think its a huge Mania Could not disagree more -- we are in the middle of a mania surrounding QE2, fueled by guys like Tepper talking his trading book. Not a mania of tulip bulb proportions but the hysterics around QE2 are everywhere, everyday. People feel like they are missing out. Sounds like the making of a mania. They should have got in at 9900 when Parsad said things were cheap Let's be clear -- the stock market did not spike in Sept because people woke up and thought stocks were cheap. The market has gone up because of the hype around QE2, which has not doubt caused some short covering. I think Tepper is doing the right thing. The man manages billions, he has to do something with it. Should he tell his people he is going to hold cash while the Fed is promising it will be worth much less tomorrow. Tepper sounded like an idiot on CNBC. The guy is not an investor in the mold of Buffet, Munger, or BG. He is a trader and hearing him talk the other day reminded me Jesse Livermore. Using Tepper's name on a board dedicated to Buffett is a borderline criminal offense:) Should he tell his people he is going to hold cash while the Fed is promising it will be worth much less tomorrow. This is part of the mania -- there is absolutely no guarantee that the Fed policy will work -- see Japan. Its a world full of risks and bad decisions. One has to pick one and move on. Again -- borderline criminal statement on a board dedicated to Buffett. How many times has Buffet asserted that the great investors realize they don't have to swing -- they can sit on their ass and wait as long as it takes for a fat pitch. If you are holding cash then I think we should wait and see how that works out. You are intoxicated with QE2, the "certainty" of dollar debasement, and cash is trash. "Playing" a trade on QE2 is just not my style. And I agree only the passage of time will show the correct approach -- so let's move on...

You're focused on the macro picture to the exclusion of individual companies. It's no wonder that you're talking about being mostly in cash. The margin of safety applies to companies and individual situations, not to the economy as a whole. This is why Buffett can often be heard echoing Benjamin Graham in saying that he spends no time thinking about the macro environment when evaluating an investment. If you think that you can time the macro economy, you're fooling yourself. No. The macro certainly affects individual companies and stocks. With that said, I am not trying to time the macro. If great companies were valued at 5-7x earnings, I would buy hand over fist today, regardless of the macro. And don't be so naive, Buffett understands the macro risks probably better than anyone on the planet. Buffett looks for a margin of safety that allows him to ignore any macro risks -- important distinction.

From the above, you must also mean that many other stocks did lose less than 40% and did better? No I do not also mean that... But thanks for clarifying my point -- most stocks are not in the index that was down 40%.

Just to be entirely clear -- from the peak in September 1939 to the trough in April 1942, the market was down 40%. Wonder what many individual stocks did during that period? Of course we know the answer -- they got slaughtered far worse than 40%.

"You had a 33% correction over the next two years and then the market doubled over the next four years. Even if you had invested in the general market at the top of 1939, you would have been ahead versus holding cash six years later. If you averaged down as the market went down, you would have done even better! In the meantime, you were also reaping dividends that would have increased your average investment return." No doubt the right approach if you're not confident in your ability to identify margin of safety. Buffett has long recommended this approach to the masses. Personally, I have no doubt in my ability to identify margin of safety and I'll wait for the fat pitch. And the current margin of safety is low at best.

You keep saying this, but Buffett keeps contradicting you in every presentation or interview he's given in the last six months. Are you that naive? Please. In this environment, if Buffett told the masses to get out of stocks, the system could literally come down. Buffett knows full well how fragile the current environment is... And both Buffett and Munger dodge the question on expected returns by simply saying stocks will do better than current yields on long term government bonds over the very long term -- not a very high hurdle over a 30-40 year period. Buffett has always said the masses should put a small amount of their income into an index fund every month, regardless of valuation -- he is talking to the masses, who he doesn't believe have the ability and/or time to invest. You need a refresher from BG. In recent months, Buffett has frequently repeated that current government policies are unsustainable because they will lead to US becoming a banana republic.

Other than pretty much orange juice, we've already encountered some inflation at the raw materials and commodities level, and that will probably continue for the next year. And if these costs do get passed on, what do you think happens to consumer spending, the economy, and the stock market? And if costs continue to rise but don't get passed on, how is that remotely good for corporate earnings?

Goldfinger makes some excellent points.

September was the largest September gain since 1939! Please tell us what happened in the months following 1939. Investors are reaching for yield and they will continue to do so for the next six months to year. This is simply the greater fool theory at work and has no relevance to value investing in the spirit of Buffett, Munger, and BG. This scheme ends terribly -- always has, always will... I am always entertained by those that convince themselves they can sell right before the music stops. Other than pretty much orange juice, we've already encountered some inflation at the raw materials and commodities level, and that will probably continue for the next year. We have not seen any of these increases passed on to the consumer in any material way. Where is the price of oil relative to pre-recession highs? What is the price of real estate relative to pre-recesssion highs?

but hardly massively overvalued either, especially relative to alternatives. Be clear -- this may work for a trade but completely irrelevant from an investment perspective. In terms of valuation, the only consideration that matters for the economic return an investor will realize on his/her capital outlay is absolute value not relative value. I'd argue that asset inflation will precede physical inflation such that holding cash can result in substantial loss of value in asset terms. This would be called an asset bubble fueled by artificial low interest rates manipulated by the Fed -- these bubbles always have and always will pop. So there will be no real loss of purchasing power in this scenario. If you held cash during the housing bubble and bought after the burst, you did fantastically well. Note holding cash when everyone else appears to be making easy money, riding the bubble is not easy to do. current ratio of stock market capitalization to GNP is around 94% On your comparison of market capitalization to GDP, note that GDP is clearly artificially inflated by artificially low interest rates and 10% budget deficits. At normalized interest rates and 3% budget deficit, GDP is a helluva lot lower.

Obviously Munger you didn't read the article you posted What is important is not only what Buffet says but what he doesn't say. He says inflation swindles the equity investor but that is only because it swindles the cash holder, bond holder, gold holder, property holder EVEN MORE! Steel1 noted the important qualification to the simplified nonsense posted above -- at least they are if you buy in at appropriate prices Couple of observations: The best approach is always and will always be to wait for Mr. Market to sell you great companies at bargain prices -- margin of safety. When the margin of safety is high, buy hand over fist. Inflation is not a problem today and will not be any time soon -- so holding cash has not resulted in a loss of value. If inflation truly rears its ugly head, the stock market will tumble more than the loss of value for cash, given current multiples -- see the 1970s. If hyperinflation truly took hold, the allocation between cash and stocks won't matter -- society will collapse. Always has and always will in hyperinflationary periods. If deflation takes hold, which is still entirely possible (see Japan), equity prices will tumble and cash will be king. Holding cash at the current time does take some strong internal fortitude when the rest of the world is shouting cash is trash, but be patient and wait for the fat pitch -- it will come...and most of all don't panic and follow the crowd.

Fascinating to watch the lemmings pile into the stock market to "protect" against inflation or even worse, believing inflation will benefit their equity investments...and when the stock market implodes, all of the fools that are giddy today will cry and blame someone else for their ignorance. Here is Buffett in 1977 (Fortune Magazine) on the topic. In my humble opinion, his best piece ever. Enjoy. How Inflation Swindles the Equity Investor http://www.valueinvesting.de/en/inflation-equity-investor-by-warren-buffett.htm

Munger - by aggressive, do you mean, make sure you have margin of safety, or are you arguing against investing large % of net worth in general? Of course -- with sufficient margin of safety, buy hand over fist. Although note that Munger once again emphasized in the Michigan Q&A that Berkshire is largely the product of 20 investment decisions. Finding the right opportunities takes a tremendous amount of hard work and patience. Leaves exchange rates in the same place and everyone reduces there debts. China will follow to keep their peg with the dollar. The middle class dont really notice, the rich dont really care because the assets are moving up, and debtors are bailed out. You just described the fantasy world the Fed lives in... Inflation ultimately destroys stock prices at best and society at worst. And if inflation doesn't take hold, the Fed will have enabled a rise in debt to levels that can't ever be repaid -- see Japan. Over the long term, there is no good outcome from the Fed's grand experiment.

In case anyone had any doubts, the curtain continues to be lifted on the Fed's intentions -- they are deliberately funding a ponzi scheme, artificially inflating all asset prices. This will not end well. These guys are completely out of their mind, playing God with our country based on pie in the sky theory. Bernanke and his crew will literally deserve life in jail when this all comes apart -- the ultimate damage resulting from their actions will be enormous. Straight for the horse's (actually, jackasses) mouth: “Balance sheet policy can still lower longer-term borrowing costs for many households and businesses, and it adds to household wealth by keeping asset prices higher than they otherwise would be,” Sack said in a speech in Newport Beach, California on Monday. Anyone aggressively investing today is simply playing the game of greater fool...and when the music stops, there will be a lot of tears, gnashing of teeth, and ruined lives -- guaranteed. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/10/07/fed-is-banking-on-phony-wealth-effect/

Great interview. A truly great and wise man. He is very clear -- plenty of pain ahead. I would add that if you invest with sufficient margin of safety, you will still do fine. In the meantime, be sure to be prepared to survive the storm and capitalize on the wonderful margin of safety that will Mr. Market will offer us. For the disciples of Prem -- his view seems pretty clear to me: Paul Rivett, Fairfax Financial’s chief legal officer, declined to comment on the counterparties to the contracts. “We are very concerned about deflation and have put this trade on to hedge some of what we see as a not insignificant risk,” Rivett said in an e-mail. “Unfortunately, we have not publicly disclosed the inner mechanics of the trade.” NEVER WAIVER -- DEMAND A HIGH MARGIN OF SAFETY, ALWAYS. Best.

I would agree that this has devolved -- not what I'm looking for either. Enjoyed the banter -- even with Parsard, who I think does a very good job with the blog. I may periodically check in but time to get back to work. Best to all. And remember -- MARGIN OF SAFETY.

1) Read the book before taking a sentence in an interview as rep of the book. 2) I am already on record (before anything Parsard said) that I'm highly skeptical of his wave theory, which he extrapolates from the fundamentals

Parsard -- you should be the one taking a break. You initiated the pettiness based on an uninformed attack. And you still have trouble with the facts -- PRECHTER's FUNDAMENTAL ANALYSIS (which was my initial reference in response to a question) CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL ANALYSIS -- NONE. And his fundamental analysis is very good in many areas. And the book is not based on ANY technical analysis. You were 100%, UNEQUIVOCALLY, COMPLETELY WRONG in your comment toward me.

Holy cow...where to start If I were to summarize in layman's terms the position argued by the author of the article, it would be as follows: We (as a nation) are in for a whole lot of trouble because we are bettering our financial position by paying down debt. Toosk -- the paradox of thrift; especially painful when debt is at 93% of GDP Back to Sally. To say that we should worry more about Sally's future now that she is improving her financial position than when she was running up her bills seems completely illogical to me. If household debt had already declined to 20% of GDP, you might have a point. On Prechter -- I am not a "follower." I have read his book. I read many books. Some of his work is very good.

UhuruPeak The vast majority of the book is a fundamental analysis, detailing the huge fiscal challenges we face and how they were created. He then goes on to a wave theory, which I have already said I'm highly skeptical of... The fundamental analysis was very good. Would have never said anything re blowhard if Parsard had not unfairly and incorrectly come at me. And no intention of engaging in any similar dialogue in the future -- it is nonsense, I agree.

Parsard -- it pains me to say this given your passion. But... First by demonstranting a complete lack of understanding about the relationship between debt and money supply, you have shown to be a full fledged novice. Now by commenting on Prechter's book without actually reading the book, you come across as a complete blowhard. I think technical analysis is the antithesis of rational thought when it comes to the investment process, and there are enough nutterbugs already in the world chattering away about gold, depression, guns and ammo. Prechter's fundamental analysis is not based on technicals AT ALL. And the vast majority of his book is a fundamental analysis. And this wave he talks of has nothing to do with technicals or charts. What a blowhard. Well, that friggin' explains why I've felt like I'm hitting my head against a rock during this whole thread! No you have this feeling because you are trying to offer an opinion without any informed foundation -- you are basically talking uninformed nonsense and can't comprehend the analysis (not understanding how the system works is a key problem). Akin a minor leaguer trying to play in the big leagues. And now by reaching to ask -- And this is coming from the guy that worships at the feet of Buffett and Watsa...do you think Prem could be wrong? I ask who is anchored. Your supposed hero CLEARLY agrees with me despite all of your nonsensical rationalizing and he has said as much in print on multiple occassions. Reality hurts but you'll be better off in the long run -- cheers!!!!!