By Dr. Jim Dahle, WCI FounderAs the taxable-to-tax-protected ratio has grown for our investments, I pay more and more attention to tax-efficiency issues in my taxable account. So, when I received my 16-page “Tax Information Package” from Vanguard in 2023, I pored over the details. Actually, we get six of these—one for each UTMA, one for our joint brokerage account that we now just use for short-term cash needs (money market funds), and the big one for the trust taxable investing account.
That last one is the one we're talking about today since that's where the vast majority of our investments now sit. We've worked hard and saved a lot, and we've been fortunate, so it's a large account with large amounts of dividends coming out of it every year. To avoid the appearance of humble-bragging, I'll use percentages today rather than the actual dollar amounts and black out the dollar amounts on any forms I share. Also keep in mind that these documents are from 2023 and refer to investments in 2022.
Vanguard Tax Information Package
The first page of this package is where most of the interesting stuff lies. It looks like this.
We invest very tax-efficiently, and the statement reflects that. The upper left section reflects information about dividends. The lower section talks about capital gains (or in our case, large capital losses in 2022 from aggressive tax-loss harvesting). The upper right section (and all of page 2) has nothing but zeros on it. Our selected investments only distributed $4.92 in unwanted capital gains (from the Vanguard Municipal MMF of all places). However, despite investing as tax-efficiently as I can, I am frustrated every year to see a significant percentage of my dividends being classed as non-qualified dividends that get taxed at ordinary income rates.
I decided to dive into that a bit to figure out why.
Dividends
Vanguard pays dividends instead of interest from all of its funds (this is why there is nothing on page 2 of my package). The stock funds pay dividends, the bond funds pay dividends, and the money market funds pay dividends. But these dividends are not all the same. The first division is between tax-exempt (line 12 above) and taxable (line 1 above) dividends. In our case, 10% of our dividends were tax-exempt, and 90% were taxable. The tax-exempt ones come from our main nominal bond holdings, Vanguard municipal bond funds held in this account, and interest from the Vanguard municipal MMF. These dividends are taxable at the state level but not the federal level.
The next division is between qualified and non-qualified dividends. In our case, 76% of our dividends are qualified, and 14% are non-qualified. I find that 14% incredibly frustrating, given that I haven't mistakenly turned any qualified dividends into non-qualified dividends in 2022 doing frenetic tax-loss harvesting and I haven't mistakenly held a fund for less than 61 days around an ex-div date.
Let's dive into the reason why so many of those dividends are not qualified.
More information here:
Why Getting a Dividend Should Not Be Exciting
How to Pay No Taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends
REIT Dividends
REIT dividends—or at least the taxable portion of them (some portion of its income is depreciation passed through to you in the form of “return of principal” distributions)—are also known as Section 199A dividends through at least 2025. They are non-qualified. In our case, that accounts for 3% of the dividends. While we do have to pay taxes on these dividends at our ordinary marginal tax rate (37% + 4.85% + 3.8% = 45.65%), we do get a deduction worth 20% of that amount, lowering the effective tax rate on them from 45.65% to 36.52%—it's still significantly more than our qualified dividend rate (20% + 4.85% + 3.8% = 28.65%).
Where do all these REIT dividends come from if our publicly traded REIT fund holding is only located in tax-protected accounts? It turns out that at Vanguard many other funds besides the Real Estate Index Fund (VGSLX/VNQ) hold REITs as a very small holding, but they make up a disproportionately large percentage of the distributions. At any rate, the REIT issue explains more than 20% of these non-qualified dividends we get from this account. What about the other 80%?
Dividends and Distributions
For that, I turn to pages 6-9 of the package, labeled “Detail for Dividends and Distributions.” Here is a list of every distribution made by the mutual funds I owned in this account during 2022. Each distribution is carefully labeled by its type. In this account, we received dividends from each of the following funds:
- Vanguard Municipal MMF (VMSXX): 0.2% of dividends (and that pesky $4.92 distributed capital gain)
- Vanguard Federal MMF (VMFXX): 0.6% of dividends
- Vanguard Total Stock Market Index ETF (VTI): 12.6% of dividends
- iShares Total Stock Market ETF (ITOT): 14.3% of dividends
- Vanguard Total International Stock Market ETF (VXUS): 8.4% of dividends
- iShares Total International Stock Market ETF (IXUS): 28.8% of dividends
- Vanguard Small Cap Value ETF (VBR): 8.3% of dividends
- Vanguard S&P 600 Small Value ETF (VIOV): 6.7% of dividends
- Vanguard FTSE Small Cap International ETF (VSS): 9.9% of dividends
- Vanguard Intermediate Tax Exempt Fund (VWIUX): 7.7% of dividends
- Vanguard Municipal Tax Exempt Bond Index Fund (VTEAX): 2.3% of dividends
Why do some of these look like duplicate holdings? They're simply tax-loss harvesting partners. I'm fine holding either one long-term, and we flush out highly appreciated shares with charitable giving periodically. But as you tax-loss harvest over the years, you tend to own two holdings for each asset class in your taxable account.
Due to our asset allocation and asset location plan, most of this account is invested in Total Stock Market (VTI/ITOT) and Total International Stock Market (VXUS/IXUS), so that's where most (almost 2/3) of the dividends come from.
More information here:
Digging Further
I'm still trying to figure out where the non-qualified dividends came from. The details for the money market funds and bond funds are not particularly interesting. Aside from that $5 capital gains distribution (but who's bitter?), 100% of the Municipal MMF and the Municipal Bond Fund distributions are tax-exempt interest. The Federal MMF is 100% non-qualified dividends, as expected, but that still only accounts for 0.6% of that 14% in non-qualified dividends. If REIT dividends account for 3% and MMFs only account for 0.6%, we've still got 10.4% missing. If we compare the remaining funds, we can calculate the percentage of their distributions that are non-qualified. For example, let's start with VTI.
You can see that VTI pays a quarterly distribution with a big qualified dividend and a small non-qualified dividend. Interestingly, the 199A dividends are LARGER than the non-qualified dividends, which surprised me. But if you do the math, you see that what they are labeling “non-qualified dividend” is really the non-qualified dividends that are not 199A dividends. Note that that is NOT what it did on page 1. Line 1 (Total ordinary dividends) includes Line 5 (Section 199A dividends). At any rate, counting the lines labeled Section 199A dividends and non-qualified dividends, you can see that 6.2% of VTI distributions were not qualified dividends. Of that 6.2%, 4.5% was Section 199A dividends. If you do this exercise for the remaining funds, you'll see the following (and learn a few interesting tidbits of information):
- VTI: 6.2% (4.5% Section 199A)
- ITOT: 7.1% (2.2% Section 199A)
- VXUS: 26.3%
- IXUS: 10.3%
- VBR: 23.2% (13.1% Section 199A)
- VIOV: 34.5% (15.6% Section 199A)
- VSS: 36.7%
What do you learn from this exercise? I learned a few things.
#1 After-Tax Returns Can Be Very Different from Pre-Tax Returns
Vanguard has a lot of experience running index funds. It's very good at it. If you just look at the 2022 pre-tax returns and compare Vanguard index ETFs to iShares index ETFs, they look very similar.
- VTI: -19.51%
- ITOT: -19.47%
- VXUS: -16.09%
- IXUS: -16.45%
Slight advantage to iShares with the Total Stock Market (TSM) Index and a somewhat larger advantage for Vanguard with Total International Stock Market (TISM). But if you look at the tax-efficiency, you may see a different story. ITOT had a higher percentage of non-qualified dividends than VTI, and a MUCH lower percentage of those (less than half) qualified as 199A dividends.
However, it wasn't the same thing on the international side. In fact, the percentage of non-qualified dividends for VXUS was over twice as high as for IXUS.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The numbers for 2023 were 41.1% and 26.7% respectively so the trend in favor of iShares persisted for at least a couple of years.]
#2 International Funds Don't Get 199A Dividends
Notice that none of the international funds paid any dividends that qualified for 199A treatment. Vanguard has a foreign REIT fund, and I presume TISM and VSS own some REITs. But apparently those REITS don't get 199A treatment.
#3 Total Market Funds Are Much More Tax-Efficient
Compare the TSM and TISM funds to the SV and IS funds. It's 3%-12% non-qualified dividends vs. 23%-36% non-qualified dividends. When you are forced to invest in taxable, put your total market funds in there first.
#4 REITS Account for Much of the Non-Qualified Dividends in Domestic Funds
A big chunk of the non-qualified dividends are 199A dividends from REITs. It's over half with VTI and VBR, almost half with VIOV, and about 30% with ITOT.
I still don't know why these dividends are not 100% qualified. There are two possible explanations I could come up with for why even a very tax-efficient VTI is still sending out 1.7% (and VSS sends out 36.7%) of its dividends as non-qualified, non-Section 199A dividends. The first is that the stocks themselves are paying non-qualified dividends for some reason. This is probably part of the explanation, particularly with the international funds. If the US does not have a tax treaty with the country in which you are investing, those dividends might not be qualified. Many foreign companies don't trade on US stock exchanges, or they are considered “passive” companies. Their dividends aren't qualified either. Dividends on REITs and Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) are also not qualified. Neither are dividends paid on employee stock options nor special one-time dividends.
The second is that the funds are not holding shares for more than 60 days around ex-div dates. Technically, the shares have to be held for at least 60 days in the 121-day period around the ex-div date. Funds do have to buy and sell from time to time so they're probably never going to have 100% qualified dividends for this reason, but you wouldn't think that would cause 36.7% of dividends to be non-qualified in a fund with a turnover of only 17% per year.
I think the more significant explanation is the first, especially for international funds.
International or Domestic in Taxable First
A question related to this topic that often comes up is whether to move international stocks (such as TISM) or US stocks (such as TSM) into taxable first. There are several factors to consider that argue one way or the other.
#1 Qualified Dividends
The first is what we have been discussing, the percentage of the dividend that is qualified. As you can see, that doesn't argue clearly one way or the other. With the Vanguard ETFs, VXUS has a higher qualified-to-non-qualified ratio than VTI. On the other hand, ITOT had the higher ratio with the iShares ETFs in 2022.
#2 199A Treatment
The US stocks benefit from 199A treatment on some of those non-qualified dividends. That argues in favor of TSM first.
#3 Higher Yield
International stocks have a higher overall dividend yield. They are generally smaller and more valuey than US stocks and sell at a lower Price/Earnings (P/E) ratio. Dividends are forced taxation, so a stock that pays lower dividends is actually more tax-efficient. This argues for TSM to go into taxable first.
#4 Foreign Tax Credit
The final factor is one of the most important. When you own foreign stocks in a tax-protected account, you still pay foreign taxes on their dividends indirectly via the fund. But you don't get any credit on your taxes for it. This reduces your after-tax return. When you own foreign stocks (such as TISM) in a taxable account, you get a credit on your taxes for a lot of the taxes the fund paid on your behalf. This is known as the foreign tax credit and is claimed on IRS Form 1040, Schedule 3, Line 1 and sometimes on IRS Form 1116. You can also see your foreign tax credit on your Tax Information Package.
As you can see, this is reported in detail right along with the dividends. In the case of my three international funds, the foreign tax credit was equal to the following percentage of the dividend:
- VXUS: 7.9%
- IXUS: 15.6%
- VSS: 15.5%
Again, I can't explain why VXUS and IXUS are so different in this regard. However, I think the proper way to think about this is to realize that most white coat investors pay 18.8%-23.8% on their dividends. Getting a credit back for only 8%-16% of what you paid isn't so awesome.
So, does the foreign tax credit overcome the fact that TSM pays a lower dividend yield and more of it gets special (qualified dividend or 199A) treatment? I don't think so. While some have tried to quantify this and argue one way or the other, I think that once you've gotten to the point where you worry about this sort of thing with your portfolio, you've won the game and should figure out how to spend and give better instead of invest better.
Whether you put TSM or TISM into taxable first, the other one is surely going to be your second choice for an asset class to move in there so it isn't an issue most investors have to worry about for long.
What do you think? What have you done to improve your ratio of qualified to non-qualified dividends? What else do you do to invest tax-efficiently?
Hey Jim, awesome post excellent detail as always! Do you think that the qualified and non-qualified tax treatment is the same in mutual funds as it is in ETFs? Or does the ETF structure somehow affect the qualified to non-qualified dividend ratio?
I don’t think the ETF structure helps with income at all, but it certainly can help with capital gains.
Good grief. This amount of effort for a multimillionaire to avoid a modest amount of tax is…not good. You’ve won the game dude, maybe go on another hike or something. For the vast, vast majority of people this analysis is not remotely worth the effort.
While this post is admittedly in the weeds, we have lots of posts on this site that go well beyond the basics.
Remember that I’m not JUST managing my own money here (which I do find interesting to do). I’m ALSO generating content for a blog that helps promote a mission I’m very passionate about, that has to make payroll each month, and that helps to further our charitable goals.
I’m not suggesting you have to do this analysis. I’m saying I did it so you don’t have to!
Your main point, of course, is correct. That neither I nor any other multimillionaire needs to care all that much about these sorts of details.
Or you could argue that, to some degree, the personality type that DOES care about details like this is the very thing (or at least one of them) that led to your success.
Methodical, detail-oriented people do well in life.
I would say if I had a question about my exact vanguard 1099-INT this year, and read through his entire post wondering the exact same thing, then there are others out there wondering why they don’t get qualified dividends investing in what appear to be US funds. I too chose to not hike this morning, and read his post instead. I’ll go hiking after.
I appreciate WCI delving deep into this, as it empowers us, with the tax code and everything being so murky. This is more about knowledge is power, and all of us deserve to know the underlying reason why each dollar goes to the government in the form of taxes.
I agree. Actually, my parents called me recently to ask me about these dividends on her 1099. I turned them on to WCI and THEY fired their financial advisor 🙂 I found this article and have forwarded it to my parents. Thanks for the explanation. I feel that if we are true DIYers, we should have an understanding of these topics. Thanks again Jim!
Thanks for the article. This past April I looked closer at this too using my 2023 1099 form. I have the following three vanguard index funds in my vanguard taxable account: VTIAX, VLCAX, and VSGAX. Like you, I was very curious which fund was most tax efficient, thus I compared the three funds. VLCAX were 100% qualified divendends. So, very tax efficient. VSGAX was about 62% qualified and the yield was low about 0.68%. VTIAX was about 59% qualified and the yield was high at about 3.2%. I added up the nonqualified divendend dollar amounts for each fund and multiplied it by my marginal tax bracket (12%) to determine my federal tax cost. For VLCAX it was 0 because 100% of the dividends were qualified, for VSGAX it was around $20, and for VTIAX it was around 0. The reason for the 0 for VTIAX is because of the foreign tax credit and being in a lower federal tax bracket (12%). To give a little more context, I have roughly the same amount of money invested in each fund mentioned above. In my situation, holding international funds (VTIAX) in taxable makes sense because at this point I am paying around $0 in taxes even though the fund has a high yield (3.2%) and low qualified dividend (59%). I am glad I looked at my 1099 and did my own calculations because it showed me that VTIAX is actually very tax efficient, and actually more tax efficient than VSGAX even though VTIAX has a much higher yield (3.2 vs 0.68) and lower % of qualified divendends (59 vs 62). So, the foreign tax credit was the key and being in a low tax bracket. I am guessing though if my marginal tax bracket increase to say 22 or 24%, VTIAX will become less tax efficient and result in paying federal taxes.
Don’t tell Stephanie (above) that there are more people like you and me who get into this stuff sometimes.
Thanks for sharing your details, especially since you’re in a very different tax bracket from me.
I forgot to mention above, to lower the tax drag on cash in a money market fund in a taxable account, you may consider keeping it in a tax deferred account. See the link below about how it works. It is actually creative and something I will consider in the future as my cash savings/emergency fund grows. Here is the wesite: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Placing_cash_needs_in_a_tax-advantaged_account
The other option is to just use a municipal MMF.
Using a municipal MMF is another option as you stated. However, the 7 day SEC yield is much lower. For example, Vanguard Municipal Money Market Fund (VMSXX) 7-day SEC yield is 3.35%, and Vanguard Federal Money Market Fund (VMFXX) 7-day SEC yield is 5.42%. As you pointed out VMSXX is exempt from federal personal income taxes, possibly making it a better (or as you pointed out, another) option. So, I was curious which money MMF would be most profitable, so I did some calculations and found that VMSXX (not federally tax exempt) is still more tax efficient, even if one leaves the money in a taxable account and doesn’t place it in a tax-deferred/managed account as I mentioned above. To illustrate how I came to this conclusion, lets say that the 7-day SEC yields above last for 1 year (I know they fluctuate, but for ease of calculation, lets pretend). Lets say John is debating on putting $10,000 in VMFXX or VMSXX. If he places it in VMFXX, in one year he will have profited $542 ($10,000 x 0.0542). If he places it in VMSXX his profit would be $335 ($10,000 x 0.0335). Since VMSXX is exempt from federal personal income tax, he pays $0 federal income tax on the $335. Since VMFXX is not exempt from federal personal income tax, he has to pay 32% federal tax on the $542 since his marginal tax rate is 32%. Thus he has to pay $173.44 ($542 x 0.32) on the profit and after paying the federal tax he ends up with $368.56 ($542-$173.44). Thus, if he places his $10,000 in VMFXX vs. VMSXX, he comes out ahead by $33.56 ($368.56 – $335). Of course, if he is in a lower tax bracket (like me), his profit after federal taxes will be even higher by placing the $10,000 in VMFXX. Thus, it seem it still makes sense to use a non-municipal MMF if one is interested in reducing tax drag. I know $33.56 is “pocket change”, but over the years and with higher amounts of $ in a money MMF, these differences will be higher and add up. I am curious though, what am I missing or overlooking in my above example? Thanks for all feedback. By the way, I know too dividends from MMF are paid monthly and thus those dividends each month would increase the overall yearly profit. I ignored that in this example to keep my example simple.
Remember those yields FREQUENTLY change. https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/municipal-money-market-yield-volatility/
You literally have to do this calculation every day if you always want to be in the right fund.
You’re way overcomplicating this calculation. All you need to do is calculate your after tax yield. For example if VMFXX has a yield of 5.42% and you’re in the 32% bracket then you would just do 5.42*(1-.32)= 3.68%. So your after tax yield is 3.68%. You just compare that to the yield of VMSXX and invest in whichever is higher.
Like Jim mentioned, these yields constantly change and it also depends on your individual tax bracket but I’m in the 37% tax bracket and VMSXX generally works out better.
This was a really cool article. Thank you again for all you do, and for interesting and informative content like this.
This was a great article, especially since I’m NOT an “in the weeds” investor. I handle all our investments without an advisor. When my husband asked why we seem to have so many non-qualified dividends while doing our taxes I didn’t have a good answer for him. I follow the advice on this blog regarding trying to have the most tax efficient investments in our taxable account and avoiding moves that would make a dividend non-qualified. But his question made me worry I was doing something wrong. Your review of your own taxes has me completely reassured that I am doing everything correctly. THANK YOU for this article. No more worry over this issue for me.
Glad to hear it was helpful. Thanks for taking the time to leave this comment. It provides a nice juxtaposition to the first one.
Jim,
“What have you done to improve your ratio of qualified to non-qualified dividends?”
For me the answer was fairly simple; “Eliminate the dividends as much as possible and consider the taxable account an inheritance that I don’t need to spend.” This let’s you forget about tax-loss harvesting and the problem of LTCG building up.
In doing the above you can then concentrate on spending down the TIRA and keeping it into a manageable range for RMDs.
Since there aren’t any No-dividend ETFs, to my knowledge, I built my own from 10 stocks:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4688408-growth-almost-no-dividends-two-years-later
Dave
Not sure it’s worth avoiding TLHing or investing in individual stocks.
WCI,
Not sure I follow what you are saying.
Are you saying that if you could scratch off all the taxes (both state and federal) created by your taxable account, it would not be worth it? Have you got a feel for what this exact number is in taxes? It is easy to find by just backing out all your 1099-B numbers from your broker(s) statements.
Can you check your figures on VXUS vs. IXUS? There have been several threads on Bogleheads showing that IXUS is actually better than VXUS in a taxable account with substantially higher % of QDI, such that VXUS may cost an extra 20-30 bps in tax drag each year. Both Vanguard and iShares publish % QDI, so no need to manually add from your 1099.
See for example:
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=425731
All I can tell you is what my 1099 said for the period of time I owned them. Longer period or different period may have different results.
I’ve owned both and am likely to continue to own both going forward as tax loss harvesting partners so I certainly wouldn’t worry about it all that much. They’re obviously both great funds. But I find little things like this to be reassuring when I see that the fund managers at Vanguard generally get all the little things right. Experience counts.
Of course the results will vary by year, but I strongly suspect there is an error in how you calculated the numbers in your 1099, or maybe you dropped a digit, or some other nuance that made the results misleading (e.g. you only held VXUS for part of the year in a way that heavily distorted the results). Hard to say what exactly may have occurred since you didn’t post the page of the 1099 involving VXUS, but you stated that this was from the 2022 tax year and reported that VXUS had only 3.6% non-QDI (so 96.4% QDI).
Vanguard publishes the % QDI for 2022 at https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/taxes/qdi-yearend-qualified-dividend-income-2022, and lists 73.73% QDI for 2022. Similarly, this page https://advisors.vanguard.com/tax-center/qualified-dividend-income reports an abysmal 58.93% QDI for 2023 and estimates 80.35% for 2024.
iShares, at this page https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/tax-information/2022-qdi-summary-stamped.pdf, reports 91.40% for IXUS for 2022, so substantially better than VXUS.
Based on the Bogleheads link I posted, it seems like a multi-year trend that IXUS is more efficient in taxable, with perhaps VXUS better for tax-deferred.
I agree this is very in the weeds and not worth worrying about too much, but given this article directly addresses the question, and for a sizeable taxable account it can be not totally immaterial (e.g. 20 bps+ difference, which dwarfs ER differences for these types of funds), I think for the sake of your readers (and I say this as a reader and a fan!), it’s worth double checking your numbers and potentially correcting or amending the article.
I went back and double checked my numbers for VXUS and IXUS and found neither of my calculations to be the same as what I reported in the post.
10.3% of my IXUS dividends were non-qualified and 26.3% of my VXUS dividends were non-qualified in 2022.
So I guess you’re right. I’ll correct the post.
But I got curious enough and now I have my 2023 1099 so let’s look and see what it was in 2023.
2023
IXUS: 26.7% non-qualified
VXUS: 41.1% non-qualified
I have no idea what I did wrong when I wrote the post, but I am impressed you caught the error.
User livesoft at the Bogleheads forum has often mentioned that Vanguard Large-Cap ETF (VV) usually pays 100% qualified dividends.
I’ve never seen where livesoft explains what is different about VV and VTI, but I have assumed it’s the small cap stocks in VTI responsible for most of the non-qualified dividends.
In a recent post livesoft said this about VV tax efficiency:
“in 2022 VLCAX disappointingly broke its streak and had a smidgeon of non-qualified dividends (and they were also not Section 199A dividends). But VLCAX got back to 100% qualified dividends (and no Section 199A dividends) for 2023”
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profile/vv
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7681053#p7681053
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=648
Interesting, but it’s important not to let the tax tail wag the investment dog. If you just want something super tax efficient you can just buy Berkshire Hathaway and Bitcoin
True.
great post. this is something i toy with a lot. we tend to think very similarly: keep nonqualifed divs as low as possible with getting broad market exposure with some scv tilts.
you’ll be happy holding disv this year hopefully. 2023 had 100% qualified dividend income. avdv not so much, only 67% were qualified. avuv and dfsv were both 100% qualified. funny how the old way of holding scv in tax-protected might be backwards, especially when putting qdis into consideration. you did all the hard work on this post, here’s the link for dimensional: https://www.dimensional.com/dfsmedia/fcc5b9674653938eb84ff8006d8c/51756-source/options/download/tax-sheet-etf.pdf
and avantis: https://www.avantisinvestors.com/avantis-resources/tax-center/qualified-dividend-income/
i tlh’ed harvested vxus to dfax in 2022 for the qdi and for a slightly stronger scv tilt while still keeping everything in one etf. 41% is a lot for non-qualified. i notice non-qualified divs are almost always higher in emerging markets. probably worth holding international dev and us in taxable, forgoing the ftc, and holding emerging in tax-advantaged, for some individuals.
triceratops from the bogleheads also has a great spreadsheet if you’ve never seen it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BB7weuHaGOlCM6N0Hk-gMTzALzwSzh95a4FHmx_nvmA/edit