Sunday, November 2, 2008

Should I Invest in Index Funds or Managed Mutual Funds?

This is a great article written by G.E.Miller on how Index Funds are better for the average investor. I'm reproducing this article completely with all links and credits, to ensure credit is given where it belongs. The purpose of having this article on this website is only to 'spread the light' - share my learning with everyone.
- Kaustav
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should I Invest in Index Funds or Managed Mutual Funds?
By G.E. Miller • Mar 21st, 2008 • Category: Index Funds, Mutual Funds, Workplace Finance

Let’s take a look at index funds and compare them to actively managed mutual funds. It’s important to understand the distinction between the two, because you may have the option of both within your employer sponsored retirement plan. In order to truly understand index funds, you need to first take a step backwards and discuss what they are ‘cloning’ - stock market indices.

What is a stock market index?

Stock market indices measure the composite value of a group of stocks. Indices can be chosen through a set of rules or hand selected by committees. One of the more popular indixes is the S&P 500, which is a committee selected group of 500 large cap (market value) stocks, mostly domestic, that are meant to resemble the market as a whole. Another example of a market index is the Russell 2000, which includes 2000 small cap stocks. You’ll also find indexes that measure different sectors of stocks such as international, health care, real estate, REIT’s, and just about any other way you can group stocks.

What is an Index Fund?

Index funds are a type of mutual fund that attempts to mimic the performance of a stock market index. Like a mutual fund, index fund share values are based on the net asset value of all of the stocks they have invested in. Rather than its holdings being regularly bought and sold through managed trades, index funds periodically change investments based on a set of rules or infrequent committee selected changes. A lot of them take the human decision element out completely.

The first index fund was created in 1975 by Vanguard founder John Bogle. Some believe that Bogle’s philosophy was based on the book A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel, which argued that one cannot consistently outperform the market averages. To this date, Bogle (now retired from Vanguard) and Vanguard remain strong advocates for investing in index funds, and Vanguard is now the second largest mutual fund company in the world.

Why Index Funds?

Proponents of index funds point towards data that shows that they consistently outperform their actively managed mutual fund peers due to the following reasons:
  • Usually they have lower management fees (because they aren’t actively managed).
  • They trade much less, so turnover ratio is lower. As a result capital gains taxes can be lower.
Comparing index funds to mutual funds often times will make them look favorable. There are mutual fund managers out there whose goal is to meet the market indexes, not consistently outperform them. Because they’re actively managed, their fees are higher and their turnover ratios are higher. Also, in general, there are some horrible mutual fund managers out there. It makes sense to check their histories before you purchase any of their shares.

A Real Life Comparison

My opinion is that you should take advantage of what is offered to you. Vanguard is my employer’s 401K plan administrator and within my plan I have the option of both index and mutual funds. Let’s take a real life look at an index fund versus a comparable mutual fund within my 401K plan.

Index fund - Vanguard Total International Stock Index (VGTSX): expense ratio = 0.27%, no manager, has outperformed the MSCI EAFE international stock index in four out of the last five years.

Actively managed mutual fund - Artisan International (ARTIX): expense ratio = 1.21%, manager is Mark Yockey who started with the fund in 1995 (good longevity). ARTIX has only outperformed the MSCI EAFE international stock index in two out of the last five years.

The Results: Over the last five years, VGTSX has outperformed ARTIX with a total return of 146% to 100% (with almost 1% lower management fees). This is a significant difference. In this case, being presented with these two funds for international exposure, I would opt for the index fund (VGTSX) every time. However, if I was doing the same comparison within a personal IRA and had other actively managed options to choose from, I would do my research and look to see if I could find an alternate actively managed fund with a lower expense ratio, low turnover, a seasoned manager, and better returns than ARTIX and VGTSX. One needs to look no further than DODFX, which returned 189% over the same period of time, with a team of 9 managers and only a 0.66% expense ratio.

You’ll find a number of investors who invest solely in index funds because they buy into the Bogle rhetoric that index funds are superior in every way in the long run. In many cases, they are. However, there are always exceptions and you should do your homework.

If you have the option of choosing between the two, take a look at the results of the mutual fund managers available to you. This post takes a look at some of the things you should look for in a mutual fund. When presented with limited options, I have opted for index funds. When presented with unlimited options, I never have.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a great article written by G.E.Miller on
how Index Funds are better for the average investor. I'm reproducing
this article completely with all links and credits, to ensure credit is
given where it belongs. The purpose of having this article on this
website is only to 'spread the light' - share my learning with everyone.
- Kaustav


Saturday, November 1, 2008

Should you invest in Index Funds?

This is a great article from Investopedia.com on
how Index Funds are better for the average investor. I'm reproducing
this article completely with all links and credits, to ensure credit is
given where it belongs. The purpose of having this article on this
website is only to 'spread the light' - share my learning with everyone.
- Kaustav
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Index funds have provided investors with a return that is directly linked to individual markets while charging minimal amounts for expenses. Despite their benefits, not everyone seems to know exactly what index funds are and how they compare to the many other funds offered by different companies.

Active and Passive Management

Before we get into the details of index funds, it's important to understand the two different styles of mutual-fund management: passive and active.

Most mutual funds fit under the active-management category. Active management involves the art of stock picking and market timing. This means the fund manager will put his/her skills to the test trying to pick securities that will perform better than the market. Because actively managed funds require more hands-on research and because they experience higher volumes of trading, their expenses are higher.

Passively managed funds, on the other hand, do not attempt to beat the market. A passive strategy instead seeks to match the risk and return of the stock market or segment of it. You can think of passive management as the buy-and-hold approach to money management.

What Is an Index Fund?

An index fund is passive management in action: it is a mutual fund that attempts to mimic the performance of a particular index. For instance, a fund that tracks the S&P 500 index would own the same stocks as those within the S&P 500. It's as simple as that! These funds believe that tracking the market's performance will produce a better result compared to the other funds.

Remember, when people talk of "the market" they are most often referring to either the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P 500. There are, however, numerous other indexes that track the market such as the Nasdaq Composite, Wilshire Total Market Index, Russell 2000 and more. (For more on this subject, see this Index Tutorial.)

What Benefits Are They Providing?

There are two main reasons why somebody chooses to invest in an index fund.

The first reason is related to an investing theory known as the efficient market hypothesis. This theory states that all markets are efficient, and that it is impossible for investors to gain above normal returns because all relevant information that may affect a stock's price is already incorporated within its price. Thus, index fund managers and their investors believe that if you can't beat the market, you might as well join it.

The second reason to choose an index fund is the low expense ratios. Typically, the range for these funds is around 0.2-0.5%, which is much lower than the 1.3-2.5% often seen for actively managed funds. But the cost savings don't stop there. Index funds don't have the sales charges known as loads, which many mutual funds have.

In bull markets when returns are high these ratios are not as noticeable for investors; however, when bear markets come around, the higher expense ratios become more conspicuous as they are directly deducted from meager returns. For example, if the return on a mutual fund is 10% and the expense ratio is 3%, then the real return to the investor is only 7%.

What Are You Missing Out On?

One of the major arguments of active managers is that, by investing in an index fund, investors are giving up before they have even started. These managers believe that the market has already defeated investors who are buying into these types of funds. As index fund will always earn a return identical to that of the market it's tracking, index investors will not be able to participate if any anomalies occur. For instance, during the tech boom of the late '90s, when new technologies companies reached record highs, index funds were unable to match the record amounts of some actively-managed funds.

What Are the Results?

Generally, when you look at mutual fund performance over the long run, you can see a trend of actively-managed funds underperforming the S&P 500 index. A common statistic is that the S&P 500 outperforms 80% of mutual funds. While this stat is true in some years, it's not always the case.

A better comparison is provided by Burton Malkiel, the man who popularized efficient market theory in his book "A Random Walk Down Wall Street". The 1999 edition of his book begins by comparing $10,000 investment in the S&P 500 index fund to the same amount in the average actively-managed mutual fund. From the start of 1969 through to June 30, 1998, the index investor was ahead by almost $140,000: her original $10,000 increased 31-times to $311,000, while the active-fund investor ended up with only $171,950.

Are Index Funds Better?

It's true that over the short term some mutual funds will outperform the market by significant amounts. But picking the good funds out of the thousands (literally) that exist is almost as difficult as picking stocks yourself! Whether or not you believe in efficient markets, the costs in most mutual funds make it very difficult to outperform an index fund over the long term.

by Investopedia Staff
Investopedia.com believes that individuals can excel at managing their financial affairs. As such, they strive to provide free educational content and tools to empower individual investors, including more than 1,200 original and objective articles and tutorials on a wide variety of financial topics.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a great article from Investopedia.com on
how Index Funds are better for the average investor. I'm reproducing
this article completely with all links and credits, to ensure credit is
given where it belongs. The purpose of having this article on this
website is only to 'spread the light' - share my learning with everyone.
- Kaustav





4 reasons why you should buy while FIIs sell, if you are in India

This is a great article from Sandeep Shanbhag on
the investment approach to adopt in India in the current market scenario. I'm reproducing
this article completely with all links and credits, to ensure credit is
given where it belongs. The purpose of reproducing this article on this
blog is only to 'spread the light' and share my learning with everyone.
- Kaustav

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



4 reasons why you should buy while FIIs sell
Sandeep Shanbhag

Wednesday, October 29, 2008


LET’S assume that you have invested in both, the US and the Indian stock markets. Now, it turns out, while your Indian investments are doing exceedingly well, the US portfolio suffers acute losses.

What is the most obvious thing you would do?

You would book profits in India, in order to make up for the US loss. Right?

This, in a nutshell, is the current scene today. The only difference is that the investors are foreign institutional investors (FIIs). These are institutions that operate mutual funds, hedge fund and portfolio management services abroad and invest the fund money in other countries. FIIs by definition, have world wide investments. So, not only India but other Asian markets are also facing a sell off.

What happens when FIIs sell?

FIIs have a huge exposure to the Indian market. Due to this, their buy and sell actions have a considerable impact on the market.

Recently, FIIs have been on a selling spree. This is one of the reasons for the markets to register steep falls. If FIIs are selling, should you buy?

The US is in turmoil but there is nothing wrong with us. The following factors just reaffirm this:

1. Toxic securities (such as MBS and CDOs) are conspicuously absent in our market, thereby preventing us from catching the infection.

Mortgage Backed Security (MBS) and Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) are securities which are backed by a pool of mortgages that are paid by home loan takers in the US. So, if a home owner defaults on his repayment, the MBS holder suffers. Read all about these instruments and how they caused the big collapse.

2. As far as domestic operations of banks are concerned, RBI has been extremely strict by continually increasing the risk weights to real estate and housing loans, thereby discouraging banks to get ahead of themselves, in a bid to increase business.

3. Unlike the West which has a negative savings rate, our domestic savings rate is more than 35 per cent, that means, on an average, Indians save 35 per cent of their income. So, even if there is a protracted slowdown, we would still have considerable demand for products and services, which in turn will help the economy to achieve good growth.

4. Amongst all emerging economies, our export to GDP ratio is the lowest. This means that even if our exports went down, our growth won't be significantly impacted. Therefore, even a full blown US recession will shave only around 40 to 60 basis points off our GDP growth rate. So, we will still have the capacity to chug along at an 8 per cent plus rate.

India - a safe haven

The fundamentals of our economy make our market nothing short of a safe haven during such turmoil. So, I don’t care if the market falls to 9,000 or even lower. Once this storm blows over, things will be back to normal.

In the meanwhile, your fortune as an investor would depend on how you react, or rather, don’t react, to the situation.

The great fall of the market isn’t going to suddenly reverse the quality of the companies listed. If anything, I am looking forward to picking up some cheap but quality stuff.

Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Disclaimer: The contents of the article or are for information purpose only and are in no way meant to be advisory in nature. The author does not claim responsibility for actions taken by readers on the basis of the Article. Please consult your financial advisor for your personal money management.

Source: http://wealth.moneycontrol.com/showstory.php?id=11311

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





This is a great article from Sandeep Shanbhag on
the investment approach to adopt in India in the current market scenario. I'm reproducing
this article completely with all links and credits, to ensure credit is
given where it belongs. The purpose of reproducing this article on this
blog is only to 'spread the light' and share my learning with everyone.
- Kaustav



Why America needs an economic strategy- Features-The Economic Times

This is a great article from Michael Porter on
America's urgent need for a cohesive national economic strategy. I'm reproducing
this article completely with all links and credits, to ensure credit is
given where it belongs. The purpose of reproducing this article on this
blog is only to 'spread the light' and share my learning with everyone.
- Kaustav


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Why America needs an economic strategy

By: Michael E. Porter

31 Oct, 2008, 1900 hrs IST, BusinessWeek

With the US election just days away, it has never been more important to consider what the next President must do to keep America competitive. In this time of crisis, Washington has focused on the immediate and the short term. Lost are the more basic questions we really need to worry about: What is the fundamental competitive position of the U.S. in the global economy? And what must we do to remain strong when other nations are making rapid progress?

The stark truth is that the U.S. has no long-term economic strategy—no coherent set of policies to ensure competitiveness over the long haul. Strategy embodies clear priorities, based on understanding the strengths we need to preserve and the weaknesses that threaten our prosperity the most. Strategy addresses what to do, but also what not to do. In dealing with a crisis, experience teaches us that steps to address the immediate problem must support a long-term strategy. Yet it is far from clear that we are taking the steps most important to America's long-term economic prosperity.

America's political system, especially as it has evolved in recent times, almost guarantees an absence of strategic thinking at the federal level. Government leaders react to current events piecemeal, rather than developing a strategy that unfolds over years. Congress and the Executive Branch are organized around discrete policy areas, not around the overall goal of improving competitiveness. Neither candidate has put forward anything close to a strategy; rather, each has presented a set of disconnected policy proposals with political appeal. Both parties contribute to the problem by approaching the economy with long-held ideologies and policy positions, many of which no longer fit with today's reality.

Now is the moment when the U.S. needs to break this cycle. The American economy has performed remarkably well, but our continued competitiveness has become fragile. Over the last two decades the U.S. has accounted for an incredible one-third of world economic growth. As the financial crisis hit, the rest of the American economy remained quite competitive, with many companies performing strongly in international markets. U.S. productivity growth has continued to be faster than in most other advanced economies, and exports have been the growth driver in the overall economy.

THE AGE OF ANXIETY

Yet our success has come with deep insecurities for many Americans, even before the crisis. The emergence of China and India as global players has sparked deep fears for U.S. jobs and wages, despite unemployment rates that have been low by historical standards. While the U.S. economy has been a stronger net job creator than most advanced countries, the high level of job churn (restructuring destroys about 30 million jobs per year) makes many Americans fear for their future, their pensions, and their health care. While the standard of living has risen over the last several decades for all income groups, especially when properly adjusted for family size, and while the U.S. remains the land where lower-income citizens have the best chance of moving up the economic ladder, inequality has risen. This has caused many Americans to question globalization.

To reconcile these conflicting perspectives, it's necessary to assess where America really stands. The U.S. has prospered because it has enjoyed a set of unique competitive strengths. First, the U.S. has an unparalleled environment for entrepreneurship and starting new companies.

Second, U.S. entrepreneurship has been fed by a science, technology, and innovation machine that remains by far the best in the world. While other countries increase their spending on research and development, the U.S. remains uniquely good at coaxing innovation out of its research and translating those innovations into commercial products. In 2007, American inventors registered about 80,000 patents in the U.S. patent system, where virtually all important technologies developed in any nation are patented. That's more than the rest of the world combined.

Third, the U.S. has the world's best institutions for higher learning, and they are getting stronger. They equip students with highly advanced skills and act as magnets for global talent, while playing a critical role in innovation and spinning off new businesses.

Fourth, America has been the country with the strongest commitment to competition and free markets. This belief has driven the remarkable level of restructuring, renewal, and productivity growth in the U.S.

Fifth, the task of forming economic policy and putting it into practice is highly decentralized across states and regions. There really is not a single U.S. economy, but a collection of specialized regional economies—think of the entertainment complex in Hollywood or life sciences in Boston. Each region has its own industry clusters, with specialized skills and assets. Each state and region takes responsibility for competitiveness and addresses its own problems rather than waiting for the central government. This decentralization is arguably America's greatest hidden competitive strength.

Sixth, the U.S. has benefited historically from the deepest and most efficient capital markets of any nation, especially for risk capital. Only in America can young people raise millions, lose it all, and return to start another company.

Finally, the U.S. continues to enjoy remarkable dynamism and resilience. Our willingness to restructure, take our losses, and move on will allow the U.S. to weather the current crisis better than most countries.

Yet what has driven America's success is starting to erode. A series of policy failures has offset and even nullified its strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive. The problem is not so much that other nations are threatening the U.S. but that the U.S. lacks a coherent strategy for addressing its own challenges.

An inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering America's feeder system for entrepreneurship. Research and development as a share of GDP has actually declined, while it has risen in many other countries. Federal policymakers recognize this problem but have failed to act.

America's belief in competition is waning. A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets. Ironically, these mergers are often justified by "free market" rhetoric. The U.S. is seeing more intervention in competition, with protectionism and favoritism on the rise. Few Americans know that the U.S. ranks only 20th among countries in openness to capital flows, 21st on low trade barriers, and 35th on absence of distortions from taxes and subsidies, according to the 2008 Global Competitiveness Report. We are fast becoming the kind of distorted economy we have long criticized.

Lack of regulatory oversight and capital requirements, in the name of liberalization and well-meaning efforts to extend credit to lower-income citizens, has undermined our financial markets. America underregulates in some areas while it overregulates in others.

U.S. colleges and universities are precious assets, but we have no serious plan to improve access to them by our citizens. America now ranks 12th in tertiary (college or higher) educational attainment for 25- to 34-year-olds. We have made no progress in this vital area over the past 30 years, unlike almost every other country. This is an ominous trend in an economy that must have the skills to justify its high wages. Instead of mounting a serious program to provide access to higher education, like the G.I. Bill and National Science Foundation programs of earlier years, Congress grandstands over the rate of endowment spending in our best universities.

The federal government has also failed to recognize and support the decentralization and regional specialization that drive our economy. Washington still acts as if the federal level is where the action is. Beltway bureaucrats spend many billions of dollars on top-down, highly fragmented federal economic development programs. Yet these programs are not designed to support regional clusters, nor do they send money where it will have the greatest impact in each region. For example, distressed urban communities, where poverty in America is concentrated, are starved of the infrastructure spending needed for job development. Again, no strategic thinking.

At a time when insecurity and job turnover are higher than ever, the U.S. also has abdicated its responsibility to provide a credible transitional safety net for Americans. It is no wonder Americans are becoming more populist, more protectionist, and more tolerant of harmful intervention in the economy. The job training system is ineffective and receives less and less funding each year. Pension security is eroding, and the most obvious step required to strengthen Social Security—slowly adjusting upward the retirement age—has not been taken. Improving access to affordable health insurance is a major worry for all Americans. Washington could take basic steps such as equalizing the tax deductibility of individually purchased insurance to assist those not covered by their employers. Yet the government has failed to do so.

HIGH COSTS, BIG HASSLES

Federal polices have hobbled America's entrepreneurial strength by needlessly driving up the cost and complexity of doing business, especially for smaller companies. Cumbersome regulation of employment, the environment, and product liability needs to give way to better approaches involving less cost and litigation, yet special interests block reform. The U.S. has become a high-tax country not only in terms of rates but also administrative hassle. Infrastructure bottlenecks, due to neglect and poorly directed spending, are driving up costs in an economy increasingly dependent on logistics. The U.S. is energy-inefficient, but public policies fail to promote energy conservation. Health-care costs are too high, but there is no serious effort to provide more integrated and efficient care.

Collectively, these unnecessary costs of doing business, coupled with skill gaps, are becoming significant enough to drive investments out of the country, including investments by American companies. Instead of addressing the real reasons for offshore investment, the parties spar over closing tax "loopholes," even though U.S. corporate rates are among the highest in the world. Where is the strategic thinking?

Trade and foreign investment are fundamental to the success of the U.S. economy, but America has lost its focus and credibility in shaping the international trading system. Our economy today depends on advanced services and selling intellectual property—our ideas, our software, our media. Yet rampant intellectual property theft and high barriers to competition in services tilt the world trading system against a knowledge-based economy.

With no strategy, the U.S. has failed to work effectively with other advanced countries to address these issues and has failed to assist poorer countries so they feel more confident about opening markets and internal reform. The U.S. has abdicated its strategic role in developing Latin America, our most natural trading partner. We have failed to engage meaningfully in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia to help countries improve the lot of their citizens. Our foreign aid is still tied to the purchase of U.S. goods and services, rather than the actual needs of countries. Congress fails to pass trade agreements with countries highly committed to our economic principles, such as Colombia.

A final strategic failure is in many ways the most disconcerting. All Americans know that the public education system is a serious weakness. Fewer may realize that citizens retiring today are better educated than the young people entering the workforce. In the global economy, just being an American is no longer enough to guarantee a good job at a good wage. Without world-class education and skills, Americans must compete with workers in other countries for jobs that could be moved anywhere. Unless we significantly improve the performance of our public schools, there is no scenario in which many Americans will escape continued pressure on their standard of living. And legal and illegal immigration of low-skilled workers cannot help but make the problem worse for less-skilled Americans.

The problem is not money—America spends a great deal on public education, just as we do on health care. The real problem is the structure of our education system. The states, for example, need to consolidate some of the 14,000 local school districts whose existence almost guarantees inefficiency and inequality of education across communities. Instead, government leaders haggle over incremental changes.

SAME OLD ARGUMENTS

We need a strategy supported by the majority to secure America's economic future. Yet Americans hear the same old divisive arguments. Republicans keep repeating simplistic free-market thinking, even though the absence of all regulation makes no sense. Self-reliance is preached as if no transitional safety net is needed. Some Republicans even argue passionately that the country should have no strategy because that would be "industrial policy." Yet the real issue is not picking industry winners and losers but improving the business environment for all American companies, something we cannot do without identifying our top priorities. Overall, Republicans seem to think business can thrive without healthy social conditions.

Democrats, meanwhile, keep talking as if they want to penalize investment and economic success. They defend unions obstructing change in areas like education, cling to cumbersome regulatory approaches, and resist ways to get litigation costs for business in line with other countries. Democrats equivocate on trade in an irreversibly global economy. They seem to think social progress can be achieved only at the expense of business.

To make America competitive, we have to get beyond this thinking. Political leaders, business leaders, and civil society must begin a respectful, fact-based dialogue about our challenges. We need to focus on competitive reality, not defending past policies.

A strategy would address each of the areas I have discussed. If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit the U.S. is not making real progress on any of them today. Efforts under way by both parties are largely canceling each other out. A strategy would direct our spending to priority investments that also put money into the economy, such as educational assistance and logistical infrastructure, rather than tax rebates. With a strategy, we would stop counterproductive and expensive practices such as farm subsidies and spending earmarks.

Is such strategic thinking possible, given America's political system? It happens in other countries—Denmark and South Korea are just two where I have participated in serious efforts by national leaders, both public and private, to come together and chart a long-term plan. This almost never occurs in the U.S., except around single issues.

We will need some new structures to govern strategically. I served on the last public-private President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness—in 1983! This time we need one that is less politically motivated. Congress would benefit from a bipartisan joint planning group to coordinate an overall set of priorities. More up or down votes on comprehensive legislative programs are needed to allow a shift to a coherent set of policies and away from lots of separate bills.

The new Administration will have an historic opportunity to adopt a strategic approach to the U.S.'s economic future, something that would bring the parties together. America is at its best when it recognizes problems and accepts collective responsibility for dealing with them. All Americans should hope that the next President and Congress rise to the challenge.

Porter, the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at Harvard Business School, is a leading authority on competitive strategy and the competitiveness of nations and regions. Professor Porter's work is recognized in governments, corporations, nonprofits, and academic circles around the world.

Copyright 2000-2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Provided by BusinessWeek




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a great article from Michael Porter on
America's urgent need for a cohesive national economic strategy. I'm reproducing
this article completely with all links and credits, to ensure credit is
given where it belongs. The purpose of reproducing this article on this
blog is only to 'spread the light' and share my learning with everyone.
- Kaustav

Followers

Contributors