It seems Canadian ETF providers are paying more attention to foreign withholding taxes these days. Not so long ago, you rarely heard anyone discussing this hidden drag on returns. But last month BlackRock announced a significant change to its iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF, ticker symbol XEF, which makes up the international equity component of my Global Couch Potato portfolio. The change was made specifically to reduce the impact of foreign withholding taxes.
When the fund was launched in April 2013 it simply held a US-listed ETF, the iShares Core MSCI EAFE (IEFA). That was a convenient way of getting exposure to the 2,500 or so stocks in this large index. Over the last three weeks, however, XEF has gradually bought up the individual stocks in the index and now holds them directly. According to BlackRock:
“XEF will generally no longer be subject to U.S. withholding taxes. While foreign withholding taxes will continue to apply to dividends paid on certain international equity securities included in the XEF Index, it is expected that the change in investment strategy implementation will reduce the overall amount of withholding taxes borne directly or indirectly by XEF.”
A refresher course on foreign withholding taxes
A few words of explanation will help here. Most countries impose a tax on dividends paid to foreign investors. But when a Canadian ETF holds a US-listed ETF of international stocks (sometimes called a “wrap” structure) there may be two levels of withholding tax. What we’ve called “Level I” tax is levied by the countries where the stocks are domiciled (in this case, European and Asian countries), while “Level II” is an additional 15% withheld by the US government before the US-listed ETF pays the dividends to the Canadian ETF.
In our recent white paper, Justin Bender and I used a metaphor: “You can think of Level I foreign withholding tax like a departure tax you pay when taking a direct flight to Canada from a foreign country. Level II tax is like a second departure tax you pay when an overseas flight to Canada has a layover in the US.”
When you hold international equities in a non-registered account, you may be able to recover the final level of withholding tax by claiming the foreign tax credit on your return. But there’s no opportunity to recover withholding taxes if you hold the fund in a RRSP or TFSA.
So when a Canadian ETF uses a wrap structure with an underlying US-listed ETF of international stocks, withholding taxes apply as follows:
| Taxable account | RRSP or TFSA | |
| Level I (international) | not recoverable | not recoverable |
| Level II (US) | recoverable | not recoverable |
When the international stocks are held directly rather than via a US-listed ETF, there is a significant tax advantage:
| Taxable account | RRSP or TFSA | |
| Level I (international) | recoverable | not recoverable |
| Level II (US) | does not apply | does not apply |
The other side of the story
Many of iShares’ other international equity funds still use a US-listed ETF as their underlying holding, and all of Vanguard Canada’s use this structure. In recent communications with advisors, Vanguard has pushed back against the suggestion that the wrap structure is inherently more costly, with some justification.
First, some investors may believe that holding a US-listed ETF results in “double taxation.” They correctly point out that’s not true: while there are two levels of foreign withholding tax with this structure, investors don’t pay twice as much. The amounts withheld by overseas governments is quite a bit less than the 15% levied by the US. Justin’s analysis (explained in detail in our white paper) estimates it at approximately 7.5% for developed markets in a US-listed ETF. So it’s not double taxation.
Vanguard and iShares also contend, reasonably, that the additional taxes have to be weighed against the cost savings from holding a US-listed ETF. Remember, many of the foreign equity ETFs we’re talking about here have thousands of holdings in dozens of countries. Replicating these indexes with individual stocks would be costly, and there is an argument to be made for using highly liquid US-listed ETFs to get the same exposure, at least until the Canadian ETF has gathered significant assets (XEF is now approaching $200 million).
Right now, a lot of this discussion is abstract: we won’t really be able to compare the all-in cost of the various ETFs until they have a longer track record. But in the meantime, it’s good to know that ETF providers are aware of the issues, and that they’re taking steps to improve their offerings.
What are your thoughts between XEF and ZEA given they both now have a 0.20% Management fees. Assuming a person has neither position and looking to add it to a RESP.
CCP wrote ”It seems Canadian ETF providers are paying more attention to foreign withholding taxes these days.”
That is mainly because of you and your partners at PWL Capital when you released that white paper. Keep up the good work. This is by far the best canadian investing blog on the internet.
Marc-André
This is great news, and I fully agree with Marc-André’s sentiments.
Out of curiosity, I checked the trading expense ratios for for the TD e-Series International Index (~900 direct holdings, versus VDU’s indirect ~1400), and it was 0.01% for 2013. Not very scientific, but 7.5% of VDU’s 12 month yield of 2.5% is about 0.2%. Even HEW (Equal-weighted TSX60 ETF from Horizons) which should trade quite frequently and has relatively few assets has a TER of 0.14%. So it doesn’t look to me like the extra trading costs are at all comparable to the withholding tax drag.
0.2% doesn’t sound like much, but I think it’s worth considering when choosing a fund to buy (especially since VDU comes with higher management fees as well).
On a subject related to tax implications of holding international funds…. I am in a position where, in order to maintain a proper asset allocation for a portfolio held across multiple accounts, I now need to hold some international assets in a taxable corporate account and make regular additions from cash flow.
I have recently started using the BMO International Equity ETF Fund for this purpose, primarily because I can buy/sell it for no commission and, for some reason, the fund has not made a distribution since 2007! If my math is correct, this fund’s substantially higher MER vs alternatives like XEF is more than offset by the potential combined cost of taxes+MER given XEF’s distribution yield and my marginal tax rate. As an added bonus, my accountant and I don’t have to worry about tracking ACB for any Return-of-Capital component of distributions.
Obviously, I’m hoping that the distribution-free nature of the BMO fund is maintained in the future, which leads me to my question, for Dan or anyone else: How has the fund managed to accomplish this for the past 6 years?
Any insights appreciated.
@Marc-Andre and Tyler: Thanks for the kind words. We can’t take all the credit here, but I do know that our white paper made the rounds at all of the ETFs providers and we have spoken with them about these issues, so raising awareness definitely helps.
@Tyler: It’s certainly true that in the long run the trading expenses involved in replicating the index will be much lower than the additional tax drag. However, the TD fund has been around for more than a decade and has long since built the scale necessary to keep costs negligible. That wouldn’t always be the case with a brand-new ETF, so I can see using the wrap structure temporarily. Also worth remembering that a few Claymore ETFs used to address the problem with “representative sampling,” or buying up only a portion of the underlying index while funds were new and small. The results were often huge tracking errors. So the wrap is better than that strategy.
@profcorp: I don’t see how it is possible for the fund not to have had any distributions if its underlying holdings are international equities. It would have to use derivatives or some other non-traditional structure to accomplish that. But this fund simply holds one ETF in a mutual fund wrapper. The most recent annual report suggests there were distributions, though I did notice that the website suggests otherwise: it’s probably just an error.
Hi ccpotato. I’d like your thoughts on the international etf CIE.The MER last i checked was around .5% but hilds international stocks directly. Is it worth using CIE for rrsp and tfsa just to skip one level of witjholding tax?
It seems that XEC (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index ETF) still uses a wrap structure. Hopefully, this will change at some point in the future.
So I am confused. Holding XEF or ZEA in an RRSP would hold no additional tax benefits since taxes are not recoverable? Any insight would be appreciated.
Thanks
@zibby: I think it’s important to put the investment decision before the tax decision. CIE uses a fundamentally weighted strategy, which is likely to perform differently from a traditional index fund. If you believe in that strategy, then go ahead and use CIE. But I would not do so simply for the tax advantage, especially since there are now options such as XEF and ZEA, which offer the same advantage.
@Brian: XEF and ZEA are subject to only one layer of foreign withholding tax in an RRSP, while ETFs with the wrap structure are subject to two levels (see the table in the post).
Are there now any differences between XEF and ZEA. I have looked at their prospectus and cannot detect any, but am I am missing something. I am planning to invest in one or the other in the near future based on your white paper and articles.
@RJ: The main difference is that ZEA is primarily a large-cap fund: it holds about 450 companies, which isn’t even the entire MSCI EAFE index. XEF’s index also includes mid-cap and some small-cap stocks and has more than 1,600 holdings.
Hello CCP,
With the change to XEF, will it now be just as tax efficient to invest in XEF in a TFSA as VEA in an RRSP?
@Mark P: Whoa now you’re adding a whole new level of complexity. :) But the answer is no. The all-in cost of XEF (that’s MER + foreign withholding tax) should be quite similar to what we estimated for ZEA in our white paper: about 0.67% in both an RRSP and a TFSA. VEA would be cheaper than that in an RRSP, and approximately the same in a TFSA.
Double-barrelled question:
I am sure you have addressed this but I can’t find it – in one of your model portfolios you use VXUS for foreign equities and in another you use XEF. What causes the difference?
Secondly, suppose a resident of Canada is fortunate enough to be presented with $400,000 USD which he wished to then place in the US market. Is there any set of circumstances under which he should convert that sum to CAD and invest in an ETF which operates in the US but trades in CAD, or is it always best to just leave it in USD and invest in a USD-nominated fund?
this type of data is what most of us novice investors don’t understand especially if we consulf an advisor. so 15 years ago i had saved up hard earned money and went to advisor with $10,000 and said what should i do with this money, i’m young and have 25 years to retirement, most likely answer would be to put it in equity for growth as i’m young. however doing some looking i come across what that $10,000 would be worth today and boy it sure looks backwards to what i was expecting to see.these are the td e series index portfolios.
fund value
tdb854 14500
tdb853 16100
tdb852 16958
tdb851 17740
tdb850 18484
tdb854 is 100% equity and the bottom tdb850 is just 35% equity. now being 10 years from retirement for example i’m suppose to shift out of less equity however how would i make up for lost time since the experts say to use equity for growth when young however that’s not the case during past 15 years. 15 yrs is a half a normal persons working life and to see results like this it sure makes financial experts look a bit silly
lots of folks laugh at the low interest rates today however if i put 10,000 in 5 year gics for next 15 years at the 5 year posted rate of 2.5 % the value in 15 years would be the same $14,500 as a 100 % equities split evenly between canada, us and international would have returned the past 15 years without loseing sleep in the crashes. and as no one can predict furture crashes it sure looks like a gamble to put much in equity with results like this, my 10,000 to invest today would go in to gic’s.
sure gets me thinking when i see stats like that, at the same time hearing where stocks are overvalued and a correction is on the way, would make more sense to me if they were saying stocks are way undervalued since the return the past 15 years is just about 2.5% and the experts say the long term return is up around 8/9 %.
@Jake: It’s true that the 15-year return on US and international equities looks very low today (its much better for Canada). But we need to be careful about anchoring on specific start and end dates. Yes, 15 years is a long time, but no one invests all their money on a single date and withdraws it all on another single date. And the start date in this case is right near the height of the dot-com bubble. If you look at 10-year and 20-year returns the numbers are not nearly as bad. And over almost every other 15-year period stocks outperformed bonds.
In fact, the asset mix in the Global Couch Potato (which includes 40% bonds) returned about 4.4% over those 15 years, which is disappointing. But both the 10- and 20-year returns were about 7.1% and 7.8% respectively.
It’s possible to strike a balance between 100% equities and 100% GICs. A simple balanced portfolio has been pretty robust over the long term.
@Jerry: The main difference between VXUS and XEF is that the former trades in US dollars, and for many investors this involves an additional cost that may overwhelm the benefits of the lower MER and greater tax efficiency. For those who want to keep things simple, using Canadian-listed ETFs like XEF is a better choice. (Note also that VXUS includes emerging markets, while XEF does not).
https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2013/12/09/ask-the-spud-when-should-i-use-us-listed-etfs/
Regarding the USD, there are several advantages to using US-listed ETFs for foreign equities, so it probably does make sense to use the US cash for that purpose, especially in an RRSP. The main problem with US-listed ETFs is that it’s often expensive to get the USD in the first place, but you don’t have that problem. If you have more USD than you need to cover the foreign equity part of your portfolio, then it probably makes sense to convert the rest to CAD if you can do so cheaply.
https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2013/03/26/ask-the-spud-the-us-dollar-couch-potato/
You always keep us up to date on new products and angles. Thanks again.
Looking at the iShares family, it is interesting that they picked this particular ETF to shift from wrap structure to direct investment in stocks, as there are larger ones, for example XSP. I hope they move over for products like XWD in particular, as I would like to get things extra simple.
My question may be difficult to answer, but simply put just how much money is involved in this difference? I currently have my RRSP invested in VEA. It has a slightly lower MER than XEF, but faces the US withholding tax. I could switch but I wonder if it will make a significant difference to my bottom line. I am afraid that this may take years to find out.
thanks for reply ccp.
does anyone on here have a BMO branch level RSP account? i was trying to switch funds from BMO Bond fund to some GIC’s however there’s no way to switch online, i tried to redeem them to but when it comes to saying where to deposit the funds it only shows my normal savings and chequing accounts which are not in rsp, if i did that I would assume it would be like i would have taken money out of rsp and get dinged with tax. i want to keep all the cash from redeeming the funds in rsp and put in to rsp. what a hassle and not very user friendly. wish it was like the tfsa bmo investorline account, if i sell a fund etc the cash stays in the tfsa in a cash holding. my rsp with bmo branch level isn’t high enough for investorline yet.
Great article, and great news Dan! How would someone looking to recover the international withholding tax (non US) from his taxable account figure out the calculations, since for part of 2014 the tax was withheld and could not be recovered, and for the latter part since the announcement it *can* be recovered?
For the US portion I assume investors don’t need to do anything, since the tax was originally deducted “at source” and now it isn’t, so the benefits are automatic..
@Sid: No need to do any calculations for either Us or international withholding taxes. If you hold the ETF in a taxable account you’ll get a T-3 slip at tax time which will show the amount of foreign tax paid. You can then claim this amount on your tax return as a foreign tax credit. If its not on the T-slip, you can’t recover it.
@Chris: Actually the wrap structure doesn’t make any difference for a Canadian-listed ETF of US equities. Even if the stocks were held directly (as they are with BMO’s S&P 500 ETFs) there is no advantage. In both cases, the withholding tax is recoverable in a taxable account and lost in an RRSP.
For estimates of the actual cost differences, see the post below and the accompanying white paper. We did not include XEF in the analysis, but it should be similar to ZEA. Note however that VEA is not subject to US withholding tax in an RRSP (only international withholding tax applies, which is always unrecoverable in RRSPs). It is actually the most tax-efficient choice in that account type, so no need to change it!
https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2014/02/20/the-true-cost-of-foreign-withholding-taxes/
Canadian Revenue Agency expects Canadians to report investments held outside of Canada if over $100,000. This form is T1135- foreign Income verification. Canada shares this info with US and can have implications of IRS expecting canadians to file income tax if over the $100,000 in investments. T1135 has been revised and is now in effect July 2014. During 2013 this new tax filing form was too lengthy and complicated and CRA revised its form.
I agree with investing globally and it will reflect other implications with this new income tax form of reporting foreign investments, especially those that are US investments
@ cmj my understanding is that money held in trust within RRSP, TFSA and RESP do not count as part of the $100,000 cut off for foreign investment reporting. Is that also your understanding CCP?
@RJ
BE VERY CAREFUL WITH THE THIS!!
My accountant calls this T1136 form a “dumb cash grab for the CRA”. It is a simple form that gives no new information to the CRA and will not result in any increase in income tax paid. But if you do not fill it out you may be subject to significant fines ($25 per day up to $2500 per year).
For an interesting commentary see also
http://howtoinvestonline.blogspot.ca/2013/04/foreign-income-assets-avoid-nasty-t1135.html
RJ,
yes, you are correct that this T1135 does not apply to RRSP, TFSA and RESP. Many Canadians have also bought real estate in US and as long as it is for personal use, it is not included in the $100,000K. However, if you are using it for investment purposes, it needs to be reported on T1135. My accountant’s advice is to stay under the radar in non registered investment accounts with a total of $100,000 Canadian in foreign investments.
Dan, I used your white paper to calculate the added cost for VXC in a non-registered account. I estimated that non recoverable foreigh witholding tax will add about 0.11% to the MER. Is that close to being correct? I am evaluating using that against a combination of ZEA,ZSP,ZEM to cover my international stock allocation.
Ok, so what is the all-in cost of VXUS in an RRSP? Ignoring currency conversion costs.
Is it more, or less, than XEF and ZEA (I know they track different things to VXUS but generally..).
Is VXUS just better because the US has better tax treaties, overall, than Canada – or does it work out to be roughly the same?
@Robert and Dave: I would have to sit down and work through those calculations before tossing out a number. Dave, to answer your question about tax treaties, yes, in general US investors pay lower rates of withholding tax on overseas equities than do Canadians. VXUS would certainly be less expensive in an RRSP than XEF or ZEA (excluding currency conversion).
ccp can you explain these fund expenses for me?
http://fundfacts.bmo.com/RetailEnglish/BMO_Conservative_ETF_Portfolio-EN-Series_A.pdf
how is this allowed ccp?, says a MER of 1.75% and a trading expense ratio expense of 0.92%, total 2.67% isn’t an etf fund suppose to be cheaper?
there needs to be something done to make costs more visible, most of us on here think the MER is cost of funds, why aren’t instiutions required to post total without having to take time to look at other documents just like airlines are required to post the total cost of ticket? one time a posted $99 ticket would end up costing $300 when all the darn fees and taxes are included.
that extra 0.92% on top of an already high MER for an etf fund is highway robbery in my opinion. we hear about how etf’s are cheaper than regular funds but boy this etf “fund” is way more costly.
maybe i’m reading and interpreting the numbers incorrectly.
thanks
@Jake: These products were created so mutual fund advisors (who are not licensed to sell exchange-traded securities) can give their clients access to ETFs. But as you’ve seen, they’re just the same old overpriced mutual funds with a deceptive name. The cost of the underlying funds is likely less than 0.40%, and then they’ve added an additional fee for the fund manager and probably 1% for the advisor who sells it. The TER seems very high: it’s probably due to one-time start-up costs (the fund is only a year old) and is likely to be much lower next year. It never makes sense for DIY investor to use a product like this.
There are regulatory changes in the works that will make funds disclose their costs in dollar terms rather than just percentages.
@Jake, you raise a scary example of weak regulations. you note a trading ratio expense of 0.92% … in case interesting, there was a study published earlier this year by John Bogle (founder of Vanguard, and a hearty advocate of passive index investing). He computed all-in-investment-costs for active and passive investment strategies. Relevant here is that he determined that difference in MER was only one component of the fee-disadvantage of actively managed mutual funds … another ‘hidden costs’ was the significant trading costs and taxation crystallization from the relatively high portfolio turnover typical of actively traded funds. His estimate of the effect for such funds was 0.50%, but this is dependent upon the degree of portfolio trading. 0.92% per your indicated fund would seem to suggest atypically high portfolio turnover.
If you are curious to compare portfolio turnovers of certain funds then this info is often stated on morningstar website.
http://johncbogle.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/FAJ-All-In-Investment-Expenses-Jan-Feb-2014.pdf
@CCP. sorry if this has been addressed, but what is the impact of withholding taxes in e-series mutual funds?
@François: The impact is the same as with an ETF that holds the stocks directly. So the TD International e-Series fund would be affected in the same way as XEF.
Hi CPP, I am switching from TD int index-e to an international ETF. This is great information. Is XEF CAD hedged? I can’t seem to find this information on iShares web site. Does VEF includes mid and small cap as well? I will go with VEF if it’s not CAD hedged. Much appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks!
@Kemi: Neither VEF nor XEF are CAD-hedged. Both track quite similar indexes with large and mid-cap stocks, though very little in small-caps. Both are good choices, though XEF would be more tax-efficient in an RRSP.
Sorry for the typo, CCP! I do want to switch it in RRSP, Does VEF hold the stocks directly? Will VEF be a better choice in an RRSP?
@Kemi: No, VEF does not hold the stocks directly, so XEF is more tax-efficient in an RRSP.
Am I misunderstanding re. VEF? I thought it was Canadian $ Hedged. I’d like it to not be but…
Thanks.
I’m trying to figure out if CIE or VEF would be ‘better’ in my commission free TFSA picks. Thanks for the help.
@ronB: VEF is hedged; XEF is not.
What do you mean by “better” when comparing CIE and VEF? The former would be more tax-efficient (because it holds the stocks directly) if that’s your only concern. But there are also fees and strategy to consider.
I know ‘past performance’, etc. but CIE does not seem to have done well lately.
Yes, I know, don’t chase performance. Hmm.
I did notice the cheaper fees though not sure how much they’d help out in the end with the hedging effect. Must study it more.
Thanks for the help.
I notice that the stocks held in international ETF’s are traded on many markets in the world. I’m thinking that an ETF like XEF (that holds the actual stocks) purchases most of its stocks from the U.S. stock exchanges if possible. (e.g. Toyota) How does this play into the layers of withholding taxes? I’m wondering if the stock is traded on a U.S. exchange and held by a canadian by whatever means (a canadian ETF like XEF, vs a U.S. ETF vs the actual stock itself, the dividend will be the same as long as all the actual stocks are traded on a U.S exchange.
I was thinking one would only save the second layer of taxation IF a canadian ETF held the stock directly with the other country. e.g. buying Toyota stock directly from the Japan exchange.
If however this is actually being done, (buying directly from foreign stock exchanges), how does the price of XEF change during the day in Canada, when the foreign stock exchange is closed in different time zones?
@Kevin: All good questions. Whether an overseas stock is held directly via an international exchange or via a New York exchange (as an American Depositary Receipt, or ADR) does not affect the withholding taxes:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/taxes/global-dividend-hunters-must-beware-tax-trap/article9840189/
http://www.thestar.com/business/personal_finance/investing/2014/04/28/how_to_avoid_tax_shock_on_your_us_investments.html
As for the pricing of international stocks are domiciled in countries with different market hours, this can indeed lead to temporary pricing anomalies. Some of the ideas are discussed here:
https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2010/04/23/international-tracking-error-part-1/
https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2013/03/18/the-etfs-price-is-right-except-when-its-not/
Thanks for this article (and the great site!)
Looking at getting either a) VDU + VEE or b) VXUS or c) XEF + XEC to be held in a non-registered corporate account.
The foreign investment tax rate in corporate is higher than personal so tax efficiency really matters.
Based on what I’ve read above c would be the best choice. Are there any other nuances to this with a corporate account that you know of?
@Tim: Thanks for the comment. Yes, the effect foreign withholding taxes is different in corporate accounts. Please see my colleague Justin Bender’s article on this subject:
https://www.pwlcapital.com/en/Advisor/Toronto/Toronto-Team/Blog/Justin-Bender/February-2013/Foreign-Withholding-Taxes-in-a-CCPC
Lots more in our white paper on this issue:
https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2014/02/20/the-true-cost-of-foreign-withholding-taxes/
Suppose I have cash funds sitting in both my taxable and my RRSP accounts, ready to be invested, and I am ready to purchase an international equity ETF, such as XEF to get foreign exposure. I am struggling with which account to hold XEF.
From a withholding tax point of view, yes, I would choose the taxable account as it allows me to recover the international withholding tax whereas the RRSP does not (and US withholding tax does not apply to either account).
But as XEF grows over the years, isn’t the overriding factor how the income and gains will be taxed? Can you comment on this point?
My understanding is that if held in the taxable account, while its efficient for withholding tax, its inefficient for income tax, ie any XEF dividends would be treated as straight income (ie no Canadian dividend tax credit). But I have not got my head around how that would compare with the deferred tax RRSP route.
So all things considered (withholding tax plus income tax) is it generally better to hold international equity ETFs in a taxable account or an RRSP account?
@Sheldon: There are few hard and fast rules about where a specific ETF should be held: it depends on many factors. But you are on the right track by recognizing that foreign withholding taxes are less important than income taxes. This may help:
https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2015/01/30/the-wrong-way-to-think-about-withholding-taxes/
Thanks for that referenced post; I love the title (“The Wrong Way to Think About Withholding Taxes”) and I took comfort in the conclusion (So let’s be clear: most investors should take full advantage of tax-sheltered accounts before investing in non-registered accounts, period. While there are exceptions to this rule of thumb, none of them have anything to do with avoiding foreign withholding taxes.). That one resonated. I also have a larger pool of funds to play with in my RRSP (vs my taxable accounts), so that’s yet another reason why it makes sense for me to hold the international equity there.
My current what-goes-where roadmap is now:
TAXABLE ACCOUNTS: Canadian equities (after TFSA/RRSP maxed)
TFSA-Laddered GICs, Reits ETFs
RRSP-CDN$: Canadian equities, Bond ETFs, Reits, International ETFs.
RRSP-USD$: US listed individual US equities
I dabbled in ETFs way back in the early days, when the pickins were slim, my time was limited, and the information was scarce. Much has changed, and I expect I will now slowly ease into them again. The guidance in your blog has been immensely informative and extremely well presented.
Many thanks again!!