Repeated post: FIRE The Dual Portfolio Approach

Financial Independence/Retire Early -- Learn How!
Post Reply
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Repeated post: FIRE The Dual Portfolio Approach

Post by JWR1945 »

I am reposting my three Dual Portfolio Approach articles from the MSN board. It is best to visit that board to see the complete threads.

The Dual Portfolio Approach

A. Background
1. This started out as a study about monitoring portfolio safety. In an earlier post on the Retire Early Home Page discussion board, I had examined how to spot problems with a portfolio with an 80% stock allocation. (See post 67551 dated 6-1-02: Monitoring Portfolio Safety.) This time I was looking at a 50% stock allocation. In the previous study I had been able to provide a very simple way of thinking about the portfolio. If the portfolio grows so that withdrawals are only 4% of its current value, it will succeed. If the portfolio falls so that withdrawals are 10% of its current value, the portfolio will fail. If the portfolio falls so that withdrawals are 6.67% of its value, the portfolio is in danger but it will not necessarily fail.
2. Notice that these rules correspond very closely to safe withdrawal rate (SWR) calculations that would normally be associated with the very beginning of a retirement. My study showed that you do not have to restrict yourself to that time. If withdrawals pass either the 4% or the 10% threshold during the first ten years, you can make a good prediction.
3. For that study I assumed an initial withdrawal rate of 5%. That choice allows for two possibilities. In one case a person retires young enough that he can go back to work if his investments do poorly. He needs to learn as soon as possible whether his portfolio will succeed or fail. The other case covers the possibility that the calculated 100% safe withdrawal rate (SWR) is wrong. If you reflect upon the logic behind such calculations, a 100% threshold number corresponds to an extreme of a statistical distribution. As such, its reliability as a true answer is low. In contrast, numbers corresponding to a 95% or a 90% probability of success are much more reliable. They correspond to more data points (i.e., historical sequences).
4. I have examined several ways to characterize a portfolio with a 50% stock allocation. I was trying to come up with some simple rules of thumb. Instead, I found out something much more profound.
B. The Dual Portfolio Concept
1. A 50% stock portfolio can be broken into two components. One has an 80% stock allocation. The other is entirely in cash. We now treat each component separately for safe withdrawal rate (SWR) estimates.
2. This approach is not exactly the same as using a true 50% stock allocation. In a true 50% stock allocation, you re-balance the entire portfolio annually. Using the dual portfolio approximation, you re-balance only the component with stocks. You leave the cash only component unchanged.
3. The next step is to withdraw funds from the two components separately...but in such a manner that the total withdrawal amount remains constant. I withdrew disproportionate amounts from the cash only portfolio. In my examples, I exhausted my cash only portfolio in 10, 15 and 20 years. After the cash only portfolio balance fell to zero, I increased my withdrawals from the remaining component (with 80% stocks).
4. I used a withdrawal rate of 5% of the initial balance of the combined portfolio. That guarantees having some failures but not many. I also used a 30-year period for the withdrawals. I did this to simplify analysis. The stock market has had several good periods for starting one's retirement and several (three) bad periods for starting a retirement. By using 30 years in our calculations, we encounter one bad period (in each historical sequence) but not two.
5. A stock allocation of 80% is nearly optimal for a 4% withdrawal rate. This combination is also very close to the best mixture that provides 100% safety. As used here, the term "100% safety"￾ is only an estimate. It is a projection based on historical sequences. It is not necessarily accurate.
6. Re-balancing an entire portfolio is not necessarily the best thing to do...especially with a 50% stock portfolio.
C. The Portfolios
1. Portfolio A starts out with $800 in stocks and $200 in cash. You re-balance it annually to maintain an 80% stock allocation.
2. Portfolio B starts out with $600 in cash. You keep it in cash always.
3. Portfolio C is the combination of Portfolios A and B. It starts out with $800 in stocks and $800 in cash. It totals $1600 initially. You only use the cash that corresponds to Portfolio A for re-balancing.
4. Portfolio D starts out with $1280 in stocks and $320 in cash. It totals $1600 initially. You re-balance it annually to maintain an 80% stock allocation.
5. Portfolio E starts out with $800 in stocks and $800 in cash. It totals $1600 initially. You re-balance it annually to maintain a 50% stock allocation.
D. Withdrawals and Thresholds
1. The overall withdrawal rate is 5% of the initial amount. For portfolios C, D and E, this totals $80 per year.
2. With Portfolio C, we withdraw three different amounts from the cash only component (Portfolio B). With Mix 1, we withdraw $30 per year for 20 years ($600 total). With Mix 2, we withdraw $40 per year for 15 years ($600 total). With Mix 3, we withdraw $60 per year for 10 years ($600 total). In each instance we deplete Portfolio B.
3. We adjust the amounts withdrawn from the Portfolio A component (of Portfolio C) so that we maintain a constant combined withdrawal amount of $80 per year for 30 years. With Mix 1, we withdraw $50 per year from Portfolio A for 20 years and then $80 per year for years 21 through 30. With Mix 2, we withdraw $40 per year from Portfolio A for 15 years and then $80 per year for years 16 through 30. With Mix 3, we withdraw $20 per year from Portfolio A for 10 years and then $80 per year for years 11 through 30.
4. We establish three thresholds. At year 10, if the amount in Portfolio C is 1600 or more, we declare success...for we could convert the portfolio to cash only and continue to withdraw $80 per year for the remaining 20 years. At year 15, if the amount in Portfolio C is 1200 or more, we declare success...for we could convert the portfolio to cash only and still withdraw $80 per year for the remaining 15 years. At year 20, if the amount in Portfolio C is $800 or more, we declare success...for we could convert the portfolio to cash only and still withdraw $80 per year for the remaining 10 years.
5. We declare success if Portfolio C meets one of its thresholds ($1600 at year 10, $1200 at year 15 or $800 at year 20) or, if it does not, if it lasts a full 30 years with a positive balance.
6. With Mix 1, Portfolio B (as part of Portfolio C) contributes $300 at year 10 and $150 at year 15 and nothing at year 20. With Mix 2, Portfolio B contributes $200 at year 10 and nothing at years 15 and 20. With Mix 3, Portfolio B does not contribute anything at years 10, 15 and 20.
E. Dory36 Calculator Inputs
1. For all Portfolio C calculations, I adjusted the inputs entirely on the basis of its Portfolio A component. The portfolio amount was $1000. The stock percentage was 80%. The expenses were 0.20%. The period was 30 years. I selected the CPI for inflation adjustments. I selected Commercial Paper (CP) for my cash equivalent component of Portfolio A. I unchecked the box for a withdrawal at the beginning of the first year.
2. For Mix 1, I withdrew $50 per year and I increased it by $30 per year beginning in year 21. For Mix 2, I withdrew $40 per year and I increased it by $40 per year beginning in year 16. For Mix 3, I withdrew $20 per year and I increased it by $60 per year beginning in year 11.
3. For Portfolio D calculations, I used a portfolio amount of $1600, a stock allocation of 80% and a withdrawal rate of $80 per year. I used 0.20% expenses. The period was 30 years. I selected the CPI for inflation adjustments. I selected Commercial Paper (CP) as my cash equivalent. I unchecked the box for a withdrawal at the beginning of the first year.
4. I used the same inputs for Portfolio E as I had used for Portfolio D except that I changed the stock allocation to 50%. (For Portfolio E calculations, I used a portfolio amount of $1600, a stock allocation a 50% and a withdrawal rate of $80 per year. I used 0.20% expenses. The period was 30 years. I selected the CPI for inflation adjustments. I selected Commercial Paper (CP) as my cash equivalent. I unchecked the box for a withdrawal at the beginning of the first year.)
F. Results
1. With Portfolio C, Mix 1 had 22 failures out of the 110 sequences from 1871 to 1980. (Sequences in the 1970s are incomplete. They are included because several failures occurred with sequences starting in the early 1970s.) This mix exhausted the cash only component at 20 years.
2. With Portfolio C, Mix 2 had 13 failures out of the 110 sequences from 1871 to 1980. This mix exhausted the cash only component at 15 years.
3. With Portfolio C, Mix 3 had 12 failures out of the 110 sequences from 1871 to 1980. This mix exhausted the cash only component at 10 years.
4. Portfolio D (80% stocks) had 9 failures out of the 110 sequences from 1871 to 1980. However, if there had been no thresholds at 10, 15 and 20 years, there would have been 20 failures.
5. Portfolio E (50% stocks) had 12 failures out of the 110 sequences from 1871 to 1980. However, if there had been no thresholds at 10, 15 and 20 years, there would have been 30 failures.
6. The normal way of assessing success for Portfolios D and E excludes thresholds at 10, 15 and 20 years.
G. Conclusions
1. By examining the dual portfolio concept, we have dramatically increased the chances of success versus the normal approach. We have introduced additional methods to gain success. In particular, when we added thresholds for converting from a volatile portfolio to an all cash portfolio, we also reduced the number of failures from 20 to 30 down to 9 to 12.
2. Adding thresholds is inherent in the dual portfolio approach. It makes immediate sense to check whether we have succeeded whenever Portfolio B (cash only) is exhausted. Because we looked at three Mixes, it made sense to look at those three thresholds across the board.
3. We would have expected Portfolios D and E with 80% and 50% stock allocations to behave in the manner that they did for a withdrawal rate of 5%. Portfolio D (80% stocks) is very close to optimal when there is annual re-balancing (the conventional approach).
4. For portfolios with 50% stock allocations, a dual portfolio with a 10-year cash component (Portfolio C Mix 3) is as good as a conventional single component (Portfolio E). Both had 12 failures. A 15-year cash component (Portfolio C Mix 2) is almost as good (13 failures).
5. Introducing thresholds for success eliminates almost all of the advantage of an 80% stock allocation over a 50% stock allocation.
6. The dual portfolio concept is consistent with gradually increasing the stock allocation from 50% to 80%. The time to make that change is the same as the lifetime of Portfolio B. Hence, the dual portfolio concept provides a productive way of thinking when one wishes to increase his stock exposure gradually.
H. Reflections
1. This study fits in nicely with the idea of having several portfolios with different goals. We can extend the dual portfolio approach easily along those lines. What we have found is that such thinking actually improves everything...including the original single portfolio approach.
2. The dual portfolio approach allows you to handle the non-stock portion of your portfolio much better than the traditional approach. For this study I treated the cash component as matching inflation and nothing more. Since today's choices include TIPS and ibonds, an actual portfolio should do better. Including them would also have further reduced any advantage of an 80% stock allocation over a 50% allocation.
3. Traditional safe withdrawal rate (SWR) studies have over-emphasized the need for high stock allocations. A more realistic handling of the cash portion of a portfolio can change results dramatically.

Have fun.

John R.

Some helpful resources:
1. For a wealth of information about safe withdrawal rates, go to www.retireearlyhomepage.com. It includes a free version the Retire Early Safe Withdrawal Rate study. The full report only costs $5.00.
2. The dory36 calculator is available at http://capn-bill.com/fire/.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Repeated post: FIRE 50 Year Dual Portfolios

Post by JWR1945 »

A. Background
1. The dual portfolio approach breaks a stock and cash mixture into two distinct components: one has a traditional stock and cash mixture, which is re-balanced annually, and the other is cash only.
2. This opens up a variety of options for managing cash during withdrawals.
3. In earlier studies I introduced thresholds for locking in success. The idea is to convert to an all cash portfolio whenever your balance has grown enough to last throughout the remaining time that you have established. For example, if you desire a duration of 30 years and if your current balance could last 15 years and if it is year 15, then you lock in success. You convert entirely to cash.
4. My initial studies used a 30-year duration. I set thresholds for 10 years, 15 years and 20 years. Later, I introduced what I call special thresholds. Using these, one converts his portfolio entirely to cash as soon his balance is sufficiently large. For example, if you have a large enough balance to last another 12 years and it is year 18, you convert to cash right away. Data collection is easy with fixed thresholds. It is a little bit more difficult with special thresholds.
5. The improvements from having thresholds were dramatic in all cases...including those with only the traditional stock and cash mixture. They also wiped out almost all of the difference between 50% stock allocations and 80% stock allocations.
6. I later extended my examination to include two special cases. In one I never re-balanced. I withdrew only cash at first. When the cash was used up, I withdrew from the remaining (stock only) portion. This particular portfolio did not differ dramatically from the others that I had examined. Once again, thresholds were highly important. They cut failures in half.
7. The other special case was much more interesting. It consisted of an 80% stock portfolio (with annual re-balancing) and a 100% cash portfolio. But this time I used two withdrawal rates. For the first 5 years, I withdrew only from the cash portfolio. The other was allowed to grow unimpeded. For the next 5 years I withdrew equally from both portfolios. That depleted the cash portfolio. For the remaining 20 years, I withdrew from the traditional 80% stock portfolio.
8. That special case had only one failure (for the start year of 1929)...even without thresholds. Roughly speaking, it provided the same amount of safety at a 5% withdrawal rate as the traditional approach provides at 4%.
9. My original choice of 30 years as the duration was strictly to simplify my data analysis. Raddr has asked about more realistic durations of 40 years and 50 years. In addition, I am very interested in knowing whether raddr's model confirms the conclusions that I draw from using the dory36 calculator. Raddr had asked me to identify some specific cases. This study is meant to do both.
B. The portfolios
1. Portfolio A remains the same. It starts with $800 stocks and $200 cash (actually commercial paper). It is re-balanced annually to maintain an 80% stock allocation.
2. Portfolio B remains the same. It starts out with $600 cash.
3. Portfolio C consists of Portfolio A and Portfolio B. It has a $1600 initial balance. It has a 5% withdrawal rate (or $80 per year). In Portfolio C, Mix 4, $80 per year is removed from Portfolio B for 5 years. That reduces its balance to $200. During years 6 through 10, both Portfolio A and Portfolio B contribute $40 per year. That depletes Portfolio B. During years 11 through 50, Portfolio A contributes $80 per year.
4. Portfolio G consists of $800 cash.
5. Except for Portfolio H1, Portfolio H consists of Portfolio A and Portfolio G. It is identical to Portfolio C, except that I have increased the cash amount by $200. It has an $1800 initial balance. Withdrawals are still $80 per year but the withdrawal rate is 4.444% of the initial balance.
6. I have reserved the label Portfolio H1 to be identical to Portfolio C, Mix 4, except that the duration is 50 years. It provides a common reference for comparing a 30-year duration with a 50-duration. We withdraw $80 per year from Portfolio B for 5 years. That reduces its balance to $200. For years 6 through 10, we withdraw $40 per year from both Portfolio A and Portfolio B. That depletes Portfolio B. For years 11 through 50, we withdraw $80 per year from Portfolio A.
7. For Portfolio H2, we withdraw $80 per year from Portfolio G (cash only) for 10 years. That depletes portfolio G. We do not withdraw anything from Portfolio A until year 11. We then withdraw $80 per year from Portfolio A (which has 80% stocks and is re-balanced annually).
8. For Portfolio H3, we withdraw $80 per year from Portfolio G (cash only) for 5 years. That reduces Portfolio G to a $400 balance. We then withdraw $40 per year from both Portfolio A and Portfolio G for 10 years. This depletes portfolio G. We withdraw $80 per year from portfolio A from year 16 through year 50.
9. For Portfolio H4, we withdraw $40 per year from both Portfolio A and Portfolio G for 20 years. That depletes Portfolio G. We withdraw $80 per year from Portfolio A for years 21 through 50.
C. Dory36 Calculator Inputs: (The dory36 calculator is available at http://capn-bill.com/fire/.)
1. In all cases the initial amount is $1000. The stocks are 80%. The expenses are 0.20%. The duration is 50 years. The cash component is Commercial Paper. The inflation index selected is the CPI (actually the CPI-U). The checkmark for an initial withdrawal is removed.
2. The dory36 calculator estimates the contribution of the Portfolio A component.
3. For H1, the initial withdrawal amount is zero. Change 1 is $40 at year 6. Change 2 is $40 at year 11. There are no other changes.
4. For H2, the initial withdrawal amount is zero. Change 1 is $80 at year 11. There are no other changes.
5. For H3, the initial withdrawal amount is zero. Change 1 is $40 at year 6. Change 2 is $40 at year 16. There are no other changes. This is identical with H1 except that Change 2 starts at year 16 instead of year 11.
6. For H4, the initial withdrawal amount is $40. Change 1 is $40 at 21 years. There are no other changes.
D. Thresholds
1. I set thresholds at years 10, 20, 30 and 40.
2. At year 10, the threshold was $3200. This provides $80 per year for 40 years.
3. At year 20, the threshold was $2400. This provides $80 per year for 30 years.
4. At year 30, the threshold was $1600. This provides $80 per year for 20 years.
5. At year 40, the threshold was $800. This provides $80 per year for 10 years.
6. Technically, I should have made an adjustment for Portfolios H3 and H4 since they still have cash at year 10. It turned out to be unnecessary. None of the portfolios grew enough by year 10 to be close to an adjusted threshold.
E. Results
1. Portfolio H1 did surprisingly well. It is similar to Portfolio H3 but with a 5% withdrawal rate. It is the reference portfolio. It had done exceedingly well with a 30-year duration. Extended to a 50-year duration, it had 13 failures without thresholds and 9 failures with special thresholds (i.e., lock in success as soon as possible). Fixed thresholds had no effects. There were still 13 failures.
2. Portfolio H2 had 25 failures without thresholds and 20 with fixed thresholds. I did not determine the effect that special thresholds would have had.
3. Portfolio H3 had 3 failures without thresholds, 2 with fixed thresholds and only 1 with special thresholds.
4. Portfolio H4 had 40 failures without thresholds and 30 failures with fixed thresholds. I did not determine the effect that special thresholds would have had.
F. Conclusions
1. I looked at three approaches to cash management. Drawing down the cash component to free up Portfolio A for the first 10 years was not especially good. But putting it in perspective, since it corresponds to a 4.444% withdrawal rate over 50 years, that is not a bad result. That was Portfolio H2.
2. Drawing down the cash component slowly over 20 years was a little bit worse. It mitigated the effects of early withdrawals from Portfolio A. But Portfolio A did not grow fast enough to compensate for those withdrawals. That was Portfolio H4. It had a 4.444% withdrawal rate.
3. The blended cash withdrawal strategies of Portfolio H1 and H3 worked well. Each provided an initial period for Portfolio A to grow rapidly. Later, there was an additional period during which the effects of early withdrawals from Portfolio A were mitigated. Portfolio H1 had a withdrawal rate of 5%. Portfolio H3 had a withdrawal rate of 4.444%.
4. These results are based upon the historical record. However, previous studies have shown that the duration for making withdrawals is extremely sensitive to the withdrawal rate when exact historical sequences are used. Raddr has done outstanding work along these lines. It is reasonable to ask whether the kinds of results that I have seen here are critically dependent on exact historical sequences. Is it generally true that a blended cash withdrawal strategy such as in Portfolios H1 and H3 is better than the simpler strategies of Portfolios H2 and H4? Is it generally true that a dual portfolio approach is better than a single portfolio approach?

Have fun.

John R.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Repeated post: FIRE More on Dual Portfolios

Post by JWR1945 »

This is out of sequence. It should be between the other two. Pay special attention to the summary and summary items 3 and 4 in particular.

FIRE: More on Dual Portfolios

A. Background
I just checked out a couple of more cases using the Dual Portfolio approach. (Someone, please, verify that my calculations using the dory36 calculator are correct.

I made these excursions to respond to raddr's desire to determine success or failure very early. I didn't do that. But I did show that there is hope for retirees who are using cash to delay stock sales to get better prices. Maybe that is better.

Once again I used a 5% withdrawal rate over 30 years so that I would have some failures but not too many.

Once again the idea was to use only a portion of the cash amount for re-balancing. Once again I used thresholds to lock in success by converting to an all cash portfolio if the portfolio did well enough.

B. The details
I looked at these portfolios:
1) Portfolio A has $800 in stocks and $200 in cash (commercial paper). It is re-balanced annually to maintain 80% in stocks.
2) Portfolio B has $600 in cash.
3) Portfolio C consists of Portfolios A and B. It totals $1600 and it starts out with 50% stocks. Only the assets in Portfolio A are re-balanced annually. Portfolio B is excluded from any re-balancing.
4) Portfolio D has $800 in stocks only.
5) Portfolio E has $800 in cash only.
6) Portfolio F consists of Portfolios D and E. It totals $1600. It starts out with 50% stocks. It is never re-balanced.

The Mixes: (Information about Mixes 1, 2 and 3 are in the previous post.)
1) Portfolio C, Mix 4: Withdraw $80 per year for 5 years entirely from Portfolio B (cash). At the end of 5 years Portfolio B decreases to $200.
For the next 5 years (years 6 through 10) withdraw $40 per from Portfolio A and $40 per year from Portfolio B. At the end of 10 years Portfolio B is depleted.
For the final 20 years (years 11 through 30) withdraw $80 per year from Portfolio A.
2) Portfolio F: Withdraw $80 per year for the first 10 years from Portfolio E (cash). At the end of 10 years Portfolio E is depleted.
For the next 20 years (years 11 through 30) withdraw $80 per year from Portfolio F.

Dory36 inputs: (The dory36 calculator is available at http://capn-bill.com/fire/.)
1. Portfolio C, Mix 4: The initial amount is $1000 with 80% stocks. Expenses are 0.20%. The duration is 30 years. The cash is in commercial paper and the inflation index is the CPI. The box for a first year withdrawal is unchecked. The withdrawal rate is set to zero (initially). Withdrawal change 1 is set to $40 at year 6. Withdrawal change 2 is set to $40 at year 11.
2. Portfolio F: The initial amount is $800 with 100% stocks. Expenses are 0.20%. The duration is 30 years. (The cash component is selected to be commercial paper. It should not make a difference.) The inflation index is the CPI. The box for a first year withdrawal is unchecked. The withdrawal rate is set to zero (initially). Withdrawal change 1 is set to $80 at year 11. (Withdrawal change 2 is set to zero at year 12.)

Thresholds:
1. I left the basic three thresholds unchanged. We convert the portfolios 100% cash to lock in success if the balance exceeds $1600 in year 10, or $1200 in year 15 or $800 in year 20.
2. I added special thresholds. If the portfolio balance ever grew enough so that I could lock in success, I did.

C. The results
1. Portfolio F, which was never re-balanced, had 22 failures before using thresholds. They dropped to 12 using the 10, 15 and 20 year thresholds. They dropped to 10 failures when I added the special thresholds...locking in success immediately when possible. Actually, I cheated just a little. In the sequence that starts in 1905, I declared success in year 12 when the balance was $1436. I should have required an additional $4. ($80 per year for the 18 years remaining is $80*18 = $1440.)
2. From Portfolio F we see that avoiding re-balancing entirely does not change things too much.
3. Portfolio C, Mix 4 was something else. It succeeded in every year except 1929. It did not even need any special thresholds. If my interpretation of the dory36 instructions is correct (and I believe that it is), managing cash properly can increase a 30-year withdrawal rate from 4% to 5% safely.

D. Summary
1. I looked at two cases that left the initial stock portions untouched at the beginning. If I ignored re-balancing entirely and grew my stock position to 100% after 10 years, I did not change the outcome dramatically.
2. In contrast, looking at Mix 4: if I treated the stock portion (Portfolio A) in isolation and delayed withdrawing from it by managing the all cash component (Portfolio B), I found a dramatic improvement.
3. I think that two things happen. Maintaining the stock portfolio at 80% and re-balancing (a traditional choice) is a good idea. But more than that, getting away from the traditional method of making annual withdrawals is a very good idea. The traditional approach is the equivalent dollar cost averaging when selling stocks. That is a reasonable approach for academic purposes since it is simple and easy to understand. But it is horrible in real life. Dollar cost averaging reduces the average price per share in a sideways market. That's great for buying. It is horrible when selling.
4. Adding thresholds to the Mix 4 approach is a good idea since there is much uncertainty about the actual safety associated with a 4% withdrawal rate.

Have fun.
John R.
User avatar
ElSupremo
Admin Board Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Post by ElSupremo »

Greetings John :)

This is great! IMO anyone who feels they have great posts similar to this should re-post them here. Great stuff!
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

I agree that these are great posts. I wish we had a rec. feature since I want to show support for this sort of thing but have nothing to add.
Have fun.

Ataloss
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Rec feature

Post by JWR1945 »

ataloss

I don't know about a rec feature. I recced just about every post back at the MSN boards. There are just a whole lot of great posts and great posters on this board.

Have fun.

John R.
Post Reply