Dear reader

As dedicated supporters of (and donors to) youth football, we are incredibly pleased with and proud of Namibia's 2 - 0 victory over Mozambique and our crowning as the 2015 Cosafa champions. Aside from the personal enjoyment we take from the game, we know that football is part of the spirit of Namibia. We will continue our support at the junior level, fully expecting to contribute to opportunities for future players in the Brave Warriors in years to come.

Congratulations!

In this newsletter we comment on the global investment market, we take aim at unnecessary products, we re-look at the life stage model, we look at the consequences of the Registrar's stubborn insistence to have the new quarterly report submitted, we put the spot light on unlisted investments and we provide a number of links to interesting and relevant articles in various news media.

As always, your comment is welcome, so open a new mail and drop us a note!

Regards

Tilman Friedrich

Tilman Friedrich's Industry Forum

Benchtest Monthly 04.2015

In April the average prudential balanced portfolio returned 2.36% (Mar: 1.28%). Top performer is Allan Gray (3.97%); while Stanlib (1.25%) takes the bottom spot. For the 3 month period Investec takes top spot, for the sixth consecutive month, outperforming the 'average' by roughly 1.6%. On the other end of the scale Prudential underperformed the 'average' by 0.80%.

As in the previous month, there has once again been very little change in some of the key global economic indicators during April. WTI (West Texas Intermediate) oil price in US$ increased by 17%, but as the result of the strengthening of the Rand against the US$ by 2% from 12.14 to 11.91, it only increased by 15% in Rand terms from R 593 to R 681. 12 Month foreign investment portfolio flows and the SA trade balance have changed insignificantly over the month, but represent a significant outflow of R 105 billion over the past year. Of course we know that interest rates have not changed either overseas or in SA, and the imminence of the US repo rate changing is as far or as close as it was 6 months ago.

Investment markets are currently very much a hostage of global monetary policy and market movement is a function of how much money is pumped into the system, for how long, by central banks. Although the US economy started to respond positively to the Fed's stimulus measure, it seems as if the phasing out of these measures has put the economic recovery into a wobble the final direction of which is not clear at this stage.

Read our full commentary in part 6 of the Benchtest 01.2015 newsletter, find out how these and other developments impact on our investment views and download Benchtest 04.2015, here...

Thought leaders or money spinners?

It is quite interesting how some product and service providers in the retirement funds industry  promoted life staging a few years ago, as the answer to investment structuring in retirement funds, professing to be thought leaders. We have never been excited about life staging, and have done a desk study to show why we are not proponents of life staging. Our conclusions are presented  in the article below.

We always believed that good old fashioned investment smoothing by means of the fund maintaining an investment reserve is in the interests of members and offers a superior mechanism that allows the fund to maximise investment returns at low cost. Unfortunately there are very few funds left who still apply this 'good old fashioned' mechanism, not only as the result of product providers promoting life staging, but also often as the result of individuals having seen an opportunity to benefit from the once-off investment reserve distribution.

Is this thought leadership or are these product providers only after their own interests of rehashing products in order to generate new income streams?

Find a snapshot of another article 'Life staging solutions try to find the middle path' that looks at some of the shortcomings of this sort of structuring, in our Media Snippets for Pension Fund Stakeholders below.

For the benefit of trustees who may still contemplate the life stage model for their fund, the following article was published on our site in 2011. If you still remember the article, please skip over it.

Stress testing the life stage model

When trustees are confronted with the question of whether their fund should introduce member investment choice, there will be a number of arguments in favour and a number of arguments against this notion. How can you as a trustee and a layman then take a rational decision? Here are some guidelines that may assist:

• You should know what the fund would like to achieve.
• You should know what the needs of the fund's stakeholders are.
• You need to ascertain that you apply the basic principles of governance.
• You should be wary of flawed arguments, such as "member carries the investment risk so the member should be entitled to make his own investment decisions" and "the life stage model is international best practice, so there can't be any question".

The 5 year period from July 2005 to June 2010 is a very representative period in terms of long-term investment returns as it covers both a bull and a bear run in the markets but produced returns reflecting what one can expect over the long-term.

We have used this period to put the life stage model on the test bench and were intrigued by the outcomes and observations that this produced. Our conclusions follow.

Conclusion

The 5 year period from July 2005 to June 2010 has been a highly volatile period in investment markets encompassing both a severe down turn and a dramatic recovery. In real terms, the returns generated over this period are quite representative of long-term expectations. Because of these features of this particular period they make for good testing ground of the life stage model.

From the results of this particular research project one can deduce the following:

• Returns are linked to risk and higher equity exposure (or higher risk) produces higher returns;
• The average balanced portfolio outperforms the lower risk portfolios;
• The life stage model will lose returns for a fund's membership overall, relative to the average prudential balanced portfolio, unless the lower risk in the later life stages can be compensated by higher risk in the earlier life stages;
• Smoothed, systematic switching to the conservative and cash portfolios, produced a higher end value than remaining in the balanced portfolio over the full period (this is similar to the principle of 'Rand cost averaging');
• Switching at specified times produced higher end values in some events, but there is a significant risk of losing value compared to the average balanced portfolio as well;
• What combination of portfolios to use depends on one's objectives as measured in terms of absolute outcome, volatility of outcomes and probability of underperforming the average balanced portfolio;
• Assuming the objective would be to maximise the absolute outcome, to minimise volatility and to minimise the probability of underperforming the average balanced portfolio and applying different weightings to the increasing levels of desired outcomes, a combination of balanced and conservative portfolios produces the highest score;
• As the result of the fact that balanced and conservative portfolios both contain a significant equity component, their behaviour in volatile markets is synchronous while cash typically behaves counter cyclical.

Based on the experience of this 5 year period, trustees contemplating the introduction of the life stage model, should be very clear on what their objectives are in terms of absolute returns, volatility and probability of underperformance.

They need to be aware that employing lower risk portfolios will reduce the returns for the fund and its members overall unless this can be compensated with a portfolio presenting a risk profile higher than the average prudential balanced portfolio.

The cash portfolio should preferably be by member choice, and for member specific reasons only. This choice should require special individual attention by the trustees to avoid any undue risk exposure.

Furthermore, considering that human nature finds losses more painful than missed opportunities, instead of switching at particular dates, it is advisable to switch a regular amount in respect of the aggregate value of all relevant members' retirement capital on a regular basis, because the pain of losing outweighs the pleasure of gaining. This would have to be done by the trustees on behalf of their members and cannot be left to the individual.

The Benchmark Pension Fund Calculator

Forewarned is forearmed. If you want to assess what your retirement provision will mean to you in terms of prospective future income, download the Benchmark pension fund calculator, here...

So what was the fuss about?

The fact that RFS administered funds have all submitted their new heavily expanded quarterly report (as described in our previous newsletter) to Namfisa in time will no doubt have reaffirmed Namfisa's view that stakeholders are obstructive for the sake of being obstructive and that there is therefore no purpose in considering their concerns or objections. What had to be done 'behind the scenes' in order to meet the reporting deadline, of course falls outside Namfisa's knowledge.

To describe what happened behind the scenes, one may use the analogy of a fully loaded train on its way to Gobabis with intermediate stations Usakos, Okahandja and Windhoek for offloading of freight, being told by Namfisa at Kranzberg station to proceed to Tsumeb to pick up empty fuel carriages. Yes, the train can be redirected to Tsumeb, but is this purposeful?

There is wide consensus that the manner in which the Registrar of Pension Funds deals with industry stakeholders is not conducive to fostering a sound relationship or spirit of cooperation. While professing to consult, the experience of the industry is that the Registrar dictates to achieve its objectives with no regard to the objectives of fund trustees who are vested with the legal responsibility to manage their funds' business.

The Registrar of Pension Funds has over the past few years continuously been increasing pressure on stakeholders and has been increasing its demands in terms of information to be provided and in terms of turnaround times. In doing so it has continuously been increasing the cost burden for pension fund members and eroding members retirement nest egg. At the same time it has never failed an opportunity to take service providers to task for high costs prevailing in the industry. Evidently, the viability of small to medium-sized funds becomes ever more questionable and these are likely to flock into umbrella funds. Such development may have cost benefits but the increased distance between member and fund will most likely impact negatively on the well-being of fund members. The industry is effectively returning to an arrangement quite similar to what prevailed before the turn of the century when all funds were accommodated in one or other insurer's pension fund umbrella. This arrangement fell totally out of favour with employers and this gave rise to the tidal wave of employers establishing their own stand-alone funds.

There is currently unfortunately no appeal or mediation mechanism in place under the Pension Funds Act that would afford stakeholders a fair hearing where conflicts arise or where there may be justified concerns about directives and requirements of the Registrar. Stakeholders are thus faced with the alternatives of bending over for the next hiding or turning to any legal means at their disposal. In whose interests would it be if stakeholders and the Regulator were to communicate with each other only through lawyers?

Tilman Friedrich is a qualified chartered accountant and a Namibian Certified Financial Planner ® practitioner, specialising in the pensions field. Tilman is co-founder, shareholder and managing director of RFS, retired chairperson, now trustee, of the Benchmark Retirement Fund.

Kai Friedrich's Administration Forum

As fund administrators one of the more complex issues we have to deal with is the determination of the tax that is to be deducted from a member's benefit, where the member has an outstanding housing loan. This could be an amount owed to the fund where the fund advanced the loan, or a loan guaranteed by the fund where a bank granted the loan. It is the administrators obligation to determine the taxable amount, and to obtain a 'tax directive' from Inland Revenue that indicates the amount of tax to be withheld, where the taxable amount exceeds N$ 40,000.

The matter becomes complex as the result of a practice note issued by Inland Revenue, PN 5/2003, that defines how the taxable amount of a lump sum death benefit from a pension fund is to be determined. It becomes even more tricky should Inland Revenue appoint the administrator as agent to collect arrears tax owed by the taxpayer who is due a benefit. A final complexity is that a lump sum death benefit from a pension fund is taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries rather than the deceased, unlike provident fund death benefits that are explicitly taxable in the hands of the deceased.

The essence of PN 5/2003 is that 34% of a lump sum death benefit from a pension fund is taxable if the pension fund does not pay any dependants' pensions. The capital value of any dependants' pension payable can be offset against the 34% of the lump sum and the net amount if positive will be taxable. If negative the full lump sum will be tax exempt.

The essence of a Notice to Appoint Agent is that it can only be issued in respect of any moneys held by the administrator for payment of a benefit to the taxpayer in respect of whom the notice is issued. How would Inland Revenue know of the administrator holding money of a delinquent taxpayer for payment of a benefit. As pointed out above, the Income Tax Act requires the administrator to obtain a tax directive on any taxable benefit in excess of N$ 40,000. Where a benefit is not taxable, no directive needs to be obtained and Inland Revenue would not be aware of an opportunity to seize on moneys held by the administrator for payment of a benefit to a delinquent taxpayer.

Coming to the matter of benefits and housing loans, a housing loan guarantee, is a liability of the fund in the first instance and the fund is obliged to meet this liability in accordance with its agreement with the holder of the guarantee. Section 37D allows the fund to deduct a loan or a loan guarantee from the benefit due by the member. This means that the administrator would be required to redeem any outstanding housing loan or housing loan guarantee from the gross benefit due in accordance with the agreement between the bank and the fund, usually immediately upon termination of membership.

Once the administrator has redeemed a housing loan guarantee or has deducted the outstanding loan by the fund to the member, from the benefit, Inland Revenue can collect arrears tax via the administrator, maximum arrears equal to the net benefit due to the taxpayer concerned, after PAYE, and after the outstanding loan has been deducted from the benefit.

Inland Revenue's claim for arrears has precedence over the fund's claim against the member's benefit for an outstanding housing loan. The administrator though, as deemed employer, holds for the taxpayer only the net amount due in terms of the rules, which is gross benefit after deducting the outstanding loan balance and PAYE and that is all the administrator can be obliged to pay to Inland Revenue.

Inland Revenue would now have to take on the fund for any shortfall as the result of the fund's claim against the taxpayer having been redeemed prior to Inland Revenue's preferent claim. Effectively, the fund would have to stand in for the smaller of Inland Revenue's claim and the amount it recovered from the taxpayer in respect of the outstanding housing loan. The administrator is not a party to such a process. This is between the fund and Inland Revenue. If PAYE on the gross benefit exceeds the net benefit due to the taxpayer after deducting the outstanding housing loan, the fund would have to stand in for the difference and would have to try recover this from the member.

Here are 3 scenarios of a death benefit from a pension fund where the deceased has an outstanding housing loan and how these are to be dealt with by the administrator for tax purposed:

Scenario 1:

• Total net death capital - N$ 1,400,000
• Housing loan balance - N$ 100,000
• Total gross benefit/death capital - N$ 1,500,000 (100%)
• Capital applied to purchase pensions - N$ 600,000
• Capital paid as lump sum - N$ 900,000 (60%)
• Taxable portion of death benefit (N$ 1,500,000) - N$ nil (less than 66% paid as a lump sum)
• Housing loan (N$ 100,000) redeemed from benefit, no tax consequence
• No directive required as there is no taxable benefit.
• No arrears tax of deceased can be claimed by Inland Revenue as no money is due to the deceased, but arrears tax of beneficiary can be claimed.

Scenario 2:

• Total net death capital - N$ 1,400,000
• Housing loan balance - N$ 100,000
• Total gross benefit/death capital - N$ 1,500,000 (100%)
• Capital applied to purchase dependants pensions - N$ nil
• Capital paid as lump sum - N$ 1,500,000 (100%)
• Taxable portion of death benefit (N$ 1,500,000) - N$ 510,000 (more than 66% paid as a lump sum, maximum of 34% deemed to be a cash withdrawal benefit)
• Housing loan (N$ 100,000) redeemed from benefit, no tax consequence
• Net death lump sum (N$ 1,400,000) -N$ 510,000 taxable in the hands of beneficiaries, i.e. 36.4% of each beneficiary's benefit is taxable in the hands of each beneficiary.
• Tax directive to be obtained for each beneficiary who is due a benefit in excess of N$ 40,000.
• No arrears tax of deceased can be claimed by Inland Revenue as no money is due to the deceased, but arrears tax of beneficiary can be claimed.

Scenario 3:

• Total net death capital - N$ 1,460,000
• Housing loan balance - N$ 40,000
• Total gross death capital - N$ 1,500,000 (100%)
• Capital applied to purchase dependants pensions - N$ nil
• Capital paid as lump sum - N$ 1,500,000 (100%)
• Taxable portion of death benefit (N$ 1,500,000) - N$ 510,000 (more than 66% paid as a lump sum, minimum of 34% deemed to be a cash withdrawal benefit)
• Housing loan (N$ 40,000) redeemed from benefit, no tax consequence.
• and no directive required
• Gross death lump sum (N$ 1,500,000) - N$ 510,000 taxable in hands of beneficiaries, i.e. 34.9% of each beneficiary's net benefit (in total N$ 1,460,000) is taxable in the hands of each beneficiary.
• Tax directive to be obtained for each beneficiary who is due a benefit in excess of N$ 40,000.
• No arrears tax of deceased can be claimed by Inland Revenue as no money is due to the deceased, but arrears tax of beneficiary can be claimed.

Kai Friedrich Director: Fund Administration, is a qualified chartered accountant and a Namibian Certified Financial Planner ® practitioner, specialising in the pensions field. He holds the Post Graduate Diploma and the Advanced Post Graduate Diploma in financial planning from the University of the Free State.

News from Namfisa

Administration of funds to be done in Namibia

Namfisa issued above directive PI/PF/Dir/02/2015 on 20 April 2015. This directs principal officers of registered funds whose administration is done outside Namibia to ensure that the administration of their funds is fully transferred to Namibia within 12 months of receipt of this directive.

Download the directive here...

Namfisa issues more standards

Namfisa recently circulated further draft industry regulations and standards under the FIM Act for comment. These are:

• RF.R.5.5 Loans and guarantees which may be granted to a member of a fund
  Generally this is a copy of section 19(5) of the Act. A loan may not be granted in respect of a right of occupancy by virtue of the operation of an agreement of lease or 'similar temporary measure'. A member may only be granted one loan at a time. A loan to a member by a fund may now not exceed the lesser of the lowest benefit in terms of the rules, net of income tax, or the fair value of the property. Loans to, or investment in shares in an entity controlled by an officer or member of the fund, or by a member of the board or a director of a participating employer or of any of its subsidiaries is prohibited.
• RF.S.5.2 Requirements for investigation by and report of a valuator
  Provides for detailed requirements concerning valuator reports, the valuator's certificate on technical provisions and solvency ratio and the valuator's certification of schedule of contributions
• RF.S5.5 Determination of the soundness of the financial position of a fund
  Provides for detailed requirements concerning the determination of financial soundness and the format of the valuator's certification of a rehabilitation plan. Various responsibilities are placed upon the board of trustees in this regard.
• RF.S.5.7 Minimum benefits that a retirement fund must provide to its members
  It determines that members are to receive generally receive a benefit equal to the minimum individual reserve  defines how this is to be calculated. Essentially this will outlaw vesting scales. Funds are to establish a policy for pension increases.

The standards relevant to pension funds can be downloaded here...

Note: pension funds are 'financial institutions' as contemplated by the FIM Act and all reference below to 'financial institutions' should be read to be relevant to pension funds, their trustees and their service providers.

The following draft documents have been issued with regard to pension funds:

General Standards

• GEN.S 9.2 Fit & proper
• GEN.S 9.8 Independence
• GEN.S 9.9 Code of conduct
• GEN.S 9.10 Outsourcing
• GEN.S 9.11 Investment policy statement
• GEN.S 9.12 Investment mandate
• GEN.S 9.13 Payment of contributions

Regulations

• RF.R.5.1 Funds and classes of funds in the definition of 'funds'
• RF.R 5.4 Funds that may be exempted from requirement to have active members and pensioners elect trustees
• RF.R.5.5 Loans and guarantees which may be granted to a member of a fund

Standards

• RF.S.5.1 Calculation of 'actuarial surplus'
• RF.S.5.2 Requirements for investigation by and report of a valuator
• RF.S 5.3 Payment of contributions - minimum information
• RF.S 5.4 Rules requirements
• RF.S 5.6 Termination & dissolution requirements RF.S.5.7 Minimum benefits that a retirement fund must provide to its members
• RF.S.5.8 Early withdrawal from a retirement fund
• RF.S 5.9 Beneficiary nomination form RF.S 5.10 Exemption from actuarial valuation

The following new forms that are to be used with effect from 13 February 2015:

• Application for deregistration of a fund
• Application for section 14 transfer
• Appointment of auditor
• Appointment of principal officer
• Registration of a fund
• Registration of rules or rule amendment
• Appointment of valuator

Click here to download the forms...

Registered entities

Pension fund trustees are encouraged to ascertain that any service provider their fund is contemplating to appoint is a registered entity, where registration is a requirement. Use the following links to check for registration.

• Short-term brokers
• Short-term insurers
• Long-term brokers
• Long-term insurers
• Investment managers
• Pension funds

Namfisa Statistical Bulletin Q4 2014 - Pension funds in perspective

Namfisa recently published its latest quarterly statistical report for the last quarter of 2014.

Here is a summary, values given in N$ millions:

Download the full report here...

Quarterly return - Q1 2015

Funds and their service provider had just gotten to grips with the Statement of Investment Holdings when the Registrar issued a new format report that must be submitted quarterly within 30 days of each quarter end. The first report was due to be submitted by 15 May. RFS assisted its clients submitting their reports in time.

So what was the fuss all about, the Registrar of Pension Funds will be asking, having stubbornly insisted that the new heavily expanded quarterly report was submitted in time - by RFS clients at least. Read our commentary 'So what was the fuss all about?' above.

Unlisted investments - where to from here?

As at 21 May the following SPV/UIMs are registered:

• Tukuneni Capital Fund / Omaanda Capital (Pty) Ltd
• Stimulus Private Equity Ltd / Stimulus Investments Ltd
• VPB Growth Fund Trust / VPB Namibia (Pty) Ltd
• The Desert Stone Fund / Omaanda Capital (Pty) Ltd
• Allegrow Fund (Pty) Ltd Fund / Eos Capital (Pty) Ltd

Of these, our feedback is that only the Tukuneni Capital Fund and Allegrow Fund are currently actively seeking investment capital.

As per Namfisa response to a request for further extension funds perform a due diligence on these two SPV's and UIM's. It is to be noted that the minimum investment of Tukuneni Capital Fund is N$ 2.5 million and that of Allegrow Fund is N$ 10 million. Once funds have gone through the motion of a due diligence review of the available managers and have found that these SPV's do not offer a compelling investment case, a documented application for further extension should be submitted before the end of June.

Funds should also be cognisant of the fact that their Allan Gray portfolio, should they be invested with Allan Gray, holds Stimulus preference shares. These shares should qualify as unlisted investment if they are owned directly by the fund. Allan Gray has indicated that it will transfer its holdings to its clients should the client so wish. Funds are advised though that they should still consider having Stimulus present to satisfy themselves that it is a sound investment worth holding.

Media snippets
(for stakeholders of the retirement funds industry)

Withholding tax on interest introduced in SA

As PWC Taxfirst newsletter of May 2015 reports, SA introduced withholding tax on interest as from 1 March 2015. Namibian taxpayers will taxed at the rate of 10% on any interest paid to them by a SA resident except if it is from the following sources:

• SA National, Provincial or Local Governments;
• Any SA bank, the SA Reserve Bank, the Development Bank of SA or the International Development Corporation;
• Listed debt;
• Broker accounts.

There are likely to be very few instances where a Namibian pension fund will effectively pay SA withholding tax at the rate of 10%, which was hitherto unknown. Read the full article here...

Should you cash in your pension to start a business?

There is no definitive answer to this question as may be expected. The answer depends very much on the circumstances. The guidelines provided in this illuminating article are from an SA perspective, considering SA tax implications. The Namibian tax regime with regard to retirement fund benefits is slightly different to the extent that cash withdrawal benefits are fully taxable while at retirement, one-third of the capital will be paid out tax free whatever benefits were received previously.

Think carefully before you cash in your pension to start a business and read the full article by Patrick Cairns in Moneyweb of 21 May, here...

Annuities: right choices go a long way

At some point in time all of us will reach retirement and yes, if you aren't within reach of retirement this article may not be of interest to you - but what about your parent/s? We all will at that point have to decide whether to take cash, or whether to purchase a life annuity or rather a living annuity. Cash of course is only an option for those that do not need a regular income stream in retirement. Discounting this option, should you take out a life annuity policy from an insurer or should you take a living or investment linked annuity?

If you would like some guidance before you commit to a decision that may be irrevocable (the life annuity policy), read the full article by Andrew Gillingham in Financial Times of 31 March 2015, here...

Life staging solutions try to find the middle path

Life staging has been the vogue of the day a few years ago. Our newsletter brought a few articles that looked at the shortcoming of this product.

Andrew Gillingham cites another expert commentator on this topic in Financial Mail of 31 March 2015. Before your fund ventures into this structure, read the full article here...

Media snippets
(for investors and business)

7 Skills of extraordinarily likeable people

Here are the 6 ways to be as you are - and to be extraordinarily likeable

• Lose the power pose - Next time you meet someone, relax, step forward, tilt your head towards them slightly, smile, and show that you're the one who is honoured by the introduction - not them.
• Embrace the power of touch - Touch breaks down natural barriers and decreases the real and perceived distance between you and the other person -- a key component in liking and in being liked.
• Whip out your social jiu-jitsu - No one gets too much recognition. Asking the right questions implicitly shows you respect another person's opinion -- and, by extension, the person.
• Whip out something genuine - Don't be afraid to show a little vulnerability. People may be (momentarily) impressed by the artificial, but people sincerely like the genuine. Be the real you. People will like the real you.
• Don't ask for anything - Extraordinarily likeable people focus on what they can do for other people -- not for themselves.
• Close genuinely - Say, "You know, I really enjoyed talking with you." And smile: Not that insincere salesperson smile that goes with, "Have a nice day!" but a genuine, appreciative smile.
• Accept the fact it won't be easy - Accept that being a little more deferential, a little more genuine, a little more complimentary and a little more vulnerable means putting yourself out there.

Read the detailed article by Jeff Haden on Linkedin, here...

What fantastic bosses do to inspire

Great bosses do more than just sit in the corner office. They manage to inspire their employees to greatness. So how do they do it? Here are three secrets that fantastic bosses have managed to tap into.

• Lead by example and not just by talk - Casting separate rules for yourself at any part in the organization will only alienate your employees and reinforce the idea that you are somehow separate from everyone else.
• Give employees a sense of accomplishment and of purpose - Providing employees with the emotions associated with accomplishment and purpose can be the perfect way to inspire incredible work.
• Place a strong emphasis on progress - A study conducted by behavioural economist Dan Ariely found that when people could see the fruits of their labour, they naturally become more productive.

Read the full article by Jerome Knysewski on Linkedin, here...

And finally...

"Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants."
~ Epictetus