The Gordon Equation does NOT predict future returns...

Financial Independence/Retire Early -- Learn How!
Post Reply
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

The Gordon Equation does NOT predict future returns...

Post by raddr »

...at least not with the precision that hocus and maybe some others think. Most of you know that the Gordon Equation states that the long-term expected real (inflation adjusted) return should approximate the real growth in dividends plus the dividend yield. Historically the real growth in dividends has been about 1.3% per year (1871-1973) and the dividend yield has been about 5.0% per year for the same time frame. The sum of the two is a little less than the historical 6.5% yearly return from stocks. This is explained by a near-doubling of the PE ratio (i.e. speculative return) since from 1871 to 1973 which added to stock returns.

It turns out that if you take the dividend yield and add 1.3% you do get a very rough idea of what the annual return will be long term - say 30 years out. Problem is the standard deviation of the annualized returns for each 30 year time period since 1871 is a whopping 1.6%/yr. So, if the current dividend yield is 2% the Gordon equation would predict a 3.3% +/- 3.2% (+/- 2 SD) return or a range from 0.1% to 6.5% for the next 30 years.

I submit to you that the SWR for a new 30 year retiree will depend A LOT on which end of the normal curve the returns land on. So yes, we can say that future returns will probably lag the averages but not more than that.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

I think Bernstein's "as close to being a physical law, like gravity or planetary motion, as we will ever encounter in finance" comment has caused confusion in some circles. :wink:
Have fun.

Ataloss
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 6:46 am

Re: The Gordon Equation does NOT predict future returns...

Post by peteyperson »

Interesting raddr.

Are we saying return using the measurement described is expected to be lower because we're starting from historically high P/E or just because dividends are at very low levels compared to history and have been falling steadily over the last few years?

Dividends have been reduced in part because many companies are preferring to buy back shares or invest further in the business (to mixed results). This policy may reverse if the investor voice becomes loud enough or price growth is poor over the next few years.

Petey

raddr wrote: I submit to you that the SWR for a new 30 year retiree will depend A LOT on which end of the normal curve the returns land on. So yes, we can say that future returns will probably lag the averages but not more than that.
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Re: The Gordon Equation does NOT predict future returns...

Post by raddr »

peteyperson wrote:
Dividends have been reduced in part because many companies are preferring to buy back shares or invest further in the business (to mixed results). This policy may reverse if the investor voice becomes loud enough or price growth is poor over the next few years.


Hi Petey,

I know that is the Wall Street mantra but I don't buy it. There have been some share buybacks but I believe that a greater amount of stock has been issued through stock offerings, IPO's and stock option grants.

Investors are now begging for dividends and new tax laws greatly favor issuance of dividends but you don't see companies falling all over themselves to increase dividend payouts. Fact is, dividend payout ratios for the S&P500 are close to 50% which is near the historical norm. My read on all of this? The money ain't there.
Are we saying return using the measurement described is expected to be lower because we're starting from historically high P/E or just because dividends are at very low levels compared to history and have been falling steadily over the last few years?


Dividend yield is IMO a good valuation indicator, better than PE ratios. Put another way, earnings can be faked but dividends don't lie. Yes, the Gordon Equation works because it is based on valuation, namely the dividend payout ratio.
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by raddr »

ataloss wrote: I think Bernstein's "as close to being a physical law, like gravity or planetary motion, as we will ever encounter in finance" comment has caused confusion in some circles. :wink:


That's why I always crank out the numbers myself. I wouldn't think of making such a proclamation unless I had verified the data for myself. My guess is that the quote was taken out of context. :wink:
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

Problem is the standard deviation of the annualized returns for each 30 year time period since 1871 is a whopping 1.6%/yr.

You know a whole lot more about the Gordon Equation than I do, raddr. What I know I know from reading Chapter 2 of Bernstein's book.

You are raising a concern that the standard deviation re returns for a 30-year period is large. Is it possible to use the historical sequence approach to deal with the returns side of the question and lay an adjustment based on the Gordon Equation (to adjust for valuation) on top of that? That was my understanding of what Bernstein was doing to come up with his SWR for the year 2000.
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

My guess is that the quote was taken out of context.

That's a cheap shot, raddr.

The quote appears in the book on the page that I said it appears on. Have you read the book? You say that you do not make "proclamations" without cranking out numbers. Do you make claims about quotes being taken out of context without reading them for yourself to determine what the context is?

If you have read the book, I wouid appreciate you telling me how I took the quote out of context. If you have not, I would appreciate you reading the book before putting forward such a comment.

Bernstein has views about the Gordon Equartion that are at odds with Ataloss's view of it. He most certainly does not view making use of the Gordon Equation to be engaging in guesswork.

If you disagree with Bernstein, that's fine. But if you are going to put forward claims as to what he says in the book, you really need to take a look at the book.
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

I urge all FIRE community members to get a copy of the William Bernstein book "The Four Pillars of Investing," and to read Chapter Two. Read it twice.

For the benefit of those who have not yet had a chance to obtain a copy, I will offer here longer excerpts from the section dealing with the Gordon Equation.

"In the history of modern investing, one economist towers above all others in influence on the way we examine stocks and bonds. His name was Irving Fisher....It was Fisher who, a century ago, first attempted to scientifically answer the question, 'What is a thing worth?' His career was dazzling, and his precepts are still widely studied today, more than seven decades after the book was written....

"The historical returns we studied in the last chapter are invaluable, but these data can at times be misleading. The prudent investor requires a more accurate estimate of future returns for stocks and bonds than simply looking at the past. In this chapter, we are going to explore Fisher's great gift to finance--the so-called discounted dividends model (DDM), which allows the investor to easily estimate the expected returns of stocks and bonds with far more accuracy than the study of historical returns.....

"Blunty stated, an understanding of the DDM is what separates the amateur investor from the professional.... If you can understand the chapter's central point--that the value of a stock or a bond is simply the present value of its future income stream--then you will have a better grasp of the investment process than most professionals.....

"The DDM, by the way, is the ultimate answer to the age-old question of how to separate speculation from investment. ....As Ben Graham pointed out decades ago, a stock purchased with the hope that its price will soon rise independent of its dividend-producing ability is also a speculation, not an investment.....

"In the next several pages, we'll uncover how the stock market is properly valued and how future stock market returns are estimated....

"This formulation suggests that the DOW, currently priced at around 10,000, is about 100 percent overvalued compared to the 4,667 value we just computed using the rosy 8 percent DR-return scenario. And if things get really rough, investors may decide they require a 15 percent DR to invest in stocks....It is unlikely (but not impossible) that the DOW will drop as far as 1,400 at any point in the future, but recall that at least twice in this century U.S. investors indeed did demand a 15 percent DR......

"This kind of calculation is enormously sensitive to the DR and dividends growth rate....In fact, using entirely reasonable assumptions, you can make the Dow's discounted market value almost anything you want it to be....

"Why have we spent so much time and effort on the DDM when it turns out that it cannot be used to accurately price the stock market? For three reasons....Third, and most important, the real beauty of the above formulas is that they can be rearranged to calculate the market's expected return, producing an equation that is at once stunningly simple and powerful....

"This formula, which is known as the Gordon Equation, provides an accurate way to predict the long-term stock market returns. For example, during the 20th century, the average dividend yield was about 4.5 percent, and the compounded rate of dividend growth was also about 4.5 percent. Add the two together and you get 9.0 percent. The actual return was 9,89--not too shabby. The approximately 1 percent difference was due to the fact that stocks had become considerably more expensive (that is, the dividends yield had fallen) during the period....."

The Gordon Equation is as close to being a physical law, like gravity or planetary motion, as we will ever encounter in finance.....Never forget that in the long run, it is corporate earnings growth that produces stock price increases....

"The discounted dividend model is a powerful way of understanding stock and bond behavior. As we've seen, it isn't much use in accurately predicting the fair value of the market, let alone a stock....In other words, it is impossible to know the intrinsic value of a stock or the market. But the DDM is useful in more subtle, powerful ways. First, it can be used in reverse. That is, instead of entering the estimated dividend growth and DR and getting the price, we can derive these two values from the price of the market or for a given stock. We've already seen that in 1999, for example, applying the DDM in this manner would have told you that highly unrealistic growth expectations were imbedded in the prices of tech stocks....

"And, of course, the DDM gives us the Gordon Equation, which allows us to estimate stock returns....We've just acquired a much more valuable bit of knowledge: the long-term expected return of the market. Think about it, which would you rather know: the market return for the next six months, or for the next 30 years? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather know the latter. And, within a reasonable margin of error, you can.....

"And what does the Gordon Equation tell us today about future stock returns?....Dividend growth still seems to be about 5 percent, and the yield, as we've already mentioned, is only 1.55 percent. These two numbers add up to just 6.55 percent. Even making some wildly optimistic assumptions--say 6 percent to 7 percent dividend growth rate--does not get us anywhere near the 10 percent annualized returns of the past century....

"Going forward, it looks like stock and bond returns should both be in the 6 percent range, not the 10 percent historical reward. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.

"What has happened is that stocks have had an incredible run the past few decades. Their prices have been bid up dramatically, so their future returns will be commensurately lower....

"On an intellectual level, most investors have no trouble understanding the notion that high past price returns result in high prices, which, in turn, result in lower future returns. But at the same time, most investors find this almost impossible to accept on an emotional level.

"At the end of the day, the Fisher DDM method of discounting income streams is the only proper way to estimate the value of stocks and bonds. Future long-term returns are quite accurately predicted by the Gordon Equation. As I've already said, these are essentially the laws of gravity and planetary motion of the financial markets. But it seems that once every 30 years or so, investors tire of valuing stocks by these old-fashioned techniques and engage in orgies of unthinking speculation. Invariably, Fisher and Graham's lesson--not to overpay for stocks--is re-learned in excrutiatingly slow motion in the years following the inevitable market crash....

""The rub is, the Gordon Equation is useful only in the long run--it tells us nothing about day-to-day, or even year-to-year, returns. And even in the long term, it is not perfect. As we've already seen above, over the course of the 20th century, it was off by about 1 percent of annualized return. This 1 percent difference can be attributed to the change in the dividend rate, which decreased from 4.5 percent to 1.4 percent between 1900 and 2000....Stating that there was a tripling of the dividend multiple is just another way of saying that an enthusiastic investing public has driven up stock prices relative to earnings and dividends by a factor of three....

"Over relatively short periods of time--less than a few decades--this change in the dividend or PE multiple accounts for most of the stock market's return....On the other hand, the long-term increase in stock market value is entirely the result of the sum of long-term dividend growth and dividend yield calculated from the Gordon Equation, which Bogle calls the "fundamental return" of stocks. In engineering terms, Bogle's fundamental retun is the signal--a constant reliable occurence. Bogle's speculative return is thenoise--distracting and unpredictable....

"The key point, which we'll return to again and again, si that the fundamental return of the stock market--the sum of the dividends and dividend growth--is somewhat predictable, but only in the very long term....

"The most depressing thing about the DR is that it seems to be quite sensitive to prior stock returns. In other words, becaue of human society's dysfunctional financial behavior, a rising stock market lowers the perception of risk, decreasing the DR, which drives prices up even further. What you get is a vicious (or virtuous, depending on your point of view) cycle. The same thing happens in reverse....

"The DDM tells us to expect cash to yield a zero real return, bonds to have an approximately 3 percent real return, and stocks in general to have about a 3.5 percent real return....Foreign stocks are slightly cheaper....Small stocks also sell at a slight discount to large stocks....

"The ability to estimate future stock and bond returns is perhaps the most critical of investment skills. In this chapter, we've reviewed a theoretical model that allows us to compute the "expected returns" of the major asset classes on an objective, mathematical basis.....

"There are numerous examples of how historical returns can be highly misleading. My favorite comes from the return of long Treasury bonds before and after 1981. For the 50 years from 1932 to 1981, Treasury bonds returned just 2.95 percent per year, almost a full percent less than the inflation rate of 3.80 percent. Certainly, the historical record of this asset was not encouraging. And yet, the Gordon Equation told us that the bond yield of 15 percent was far more predictive of its future return than the historical data. Over the next 15 years, thhe return of the long Treasury was in fact 13.42 percent--slightly lower than the predicted return because the coupons has to be reinvested at an ever-falling rate.....

"It seems more likely that future stock returns will be closer to the 3.5 percent real return suggested by the Fisher DDM method than the 7 percent historical real gain....

"Unfortunately, although the DDM informs us well about expected returns, it tells us nothing about future risk. We are dependent on the pattern of past returns to inform us of the potential risks of an asset. And in this regard, I believe that the historical data serve us well. Although anything is possible in finance, it is hard to imagine the stock markets of the next century throwing anything our way that would surpass the 1929-1932 bear market."
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 6:46 am

Re: The Gordon Equation does NOT predict future returns...

Post by peteyperson »

A good value indicator in what sense?

That dividends are half the historical, so the companies are worth half the norm? If that is so, they are prices above the norm by 30%. Or do you completely discount P/E as a measurement altogether? Put this together for me.

Petey
raddr wrote:
peteyperson wrote:
Dividends have been reduced in part because many companies are preferring to buy back shares or invest further in the business (to mixed results). This policy may reverse if the investor voice becomes loud enough or price growth is poor over the next few years.


Hi Petey,

I know that is the Wall Street mantra but I don't buy it. There have been some share buybacks but I believe that a greater amount of stock has been issued through stock offerings, IPO's and stock option grants.

Investors are now begging for dividends and new tax laws greatly favor issuance of dividends but you don't see companies falling all over themselves to increase dividend payouts. Fact is, dividend payout ratios for the S&P500 are close to 50% which is near the historical norm. My read on all of this? The money ain't there.
Are we saying return using the measurement described is expected to be lower because we're starting from historically high P/E or just because dividends are at very low levels compared to history and have been falling steadily over the last few years?


Dividend yield is IMO a good valuation indicator, better than PE ratios. Put another way, earnings can be faked but dividends don't lie. Yes, the Gordon Equation works because it is based on valuation, namely the dividend payout ratio.
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Re: The Gordon Equation does NOT predict future returns...

Post by raddr »

peteyperson wrote: A good value indicator in what sense?

That dividends are half the historical, so the companies are worth half the norm? If that is so, they are prices above the norm by 30%. Or do you completely discount P/E as a measurement altogether? Put this together for me.


Yes, Petey, the div. yield would indicate to me that the market is at least 30% overvalued. I do not put much faith in the PE ratio per se but both PE10 and PEmax are good valuation indicators IMO. If you look at a broad range of indicators like div yield, PE10/max, P/S, P/B, Tobin's Q, P/CF they pretty much all indicate 30-50% overvaluation. I wouldn't hang my hat on any single indicator. I prefer to look at the whole picture.
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by raddr »

hocus,

I didn't mean the "out of context" comment as a cheap shot. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

OTOH I don't like the patronizing tone of your message, on the one hand admitting that I know more about the Gordon equation (only because I took the initiative to run the numbers myself) than you do and then asking if I've "read the book." Of course I have read the book and I believe that Bernstein in no way says that the Gordon equation predicts the future with any accuracy.

And yes, I do believe it is irresponsible to keep banging everyone over the head with something (Gordon equation) if you don't fully undersand it yourself.
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

I didn't mean the "out of context" comment as a cheap shot. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

How the heck did you mean it then? You said that your "guess" was that I took the quote out of context. Do you have any reason to believe this is so? If you don't, then it was a cheap shot.

only because I took the initiative to run the numbers myself)

I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about re running numbers. I have not run any numbers and I have never said that I did. Is there some reason that I would need to run numbers in order to be able to inform the board of what Bernstein said about the Gordon Equation in a book he wrote?

on the one hand admitting that I know more about the Gordon equation

It's hard for me to imagine that you don't more about the Gordon Equation than I do. Most of what I know I know from reading one chapter in one book.

Of course I have read the book and I believe that Bernstein in no way says that the Gordon equation predicts the future with any accuracy.

I put forward a long stretch of excerpts from the book in a post a little above this one. Any community member wanting to make the effort can verify for himself that my quotes of what Bernstein said were accurate. My comments came in response to claims by Ataloss that Bernstein was playing "guessing games" in his use of the Gordon Equation. Read those excerpts and tell me who was telling it straight and who was telling tales about Bernstein's views on the Gordon Equation.

The particular quote in question, Bernstein's statement that the Gordon Equation is close to being a physical law, like the law of gravity, was put forward by Bernstein not once but twice in the same chapter. He felt that the point was so important that he reitererated it for those who didn't pick up the significance the first time. That shows just how in context it is.to a discussion of Bernstein's views on the subject.

I took nothing whatsoever out of context. I informed this board of where Bernstein stands on this matter accurately. You read the book, so you knew the context. You said that you "guessed" I offered the quote out of context, and you knew darn well that I didn't.

Why?

I do believe it is irresponsible to keep banging everyone over the head with something (Gordon equation) if you don't fully undersand it yourself.

I am not clear on who you are referring to as the one who does not fully understand the Gordon Equation--do you mean raddr, ataloss, or hocus.?

If you mean hocus, you are right that I do not have a strong understanding of the ins and outs of the Gordon Equation. Never have I suggested that I do. I do have a strong understanding of what Bernstein said about the Gordon Equation in his book. I have read that chapter many times, and transcribed large sections of it for various board communities four times now. I know that ataloss is wrong in saying that Bernstein was engaging in "guessing games" in his use of the Gordon Equation. I think that this board community needs to be informed that those sorts of statements are false if it is ever going to make sense of the SWR issue. You comment that you "guessed" I has taken a key Bernstein quote out of context did not help this board community come to an informed understanding of the realities of this matter. It hurt the cause.

I think you are the most informed person on SWRs on Planet Earth, raddr. That said, you took a cheap shot at me last night, and it did damage to this community's ability o learn about this important subject matter.

I am not here to play games. I am here to advance the FIRE community's understanding of how to achieve financial independnence early in life. I don't offer the board quotes taken out of context. I have 2,000 posts in my posting history, and there has never been one in which I deliberatly took a quote out of context. You never see that in a post with the hocus screen-name on it. It's a game some play, and some don't. I don't. Not ever.

Don't forget.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

My comments came in response to claims by Ataloss that Bernstein was playing "guessing games" in his use of the Gordon Equation. Read those excerpts and tell me who was telling it straight and who was telling tales about Bernstein's views on the Gordon Equation.


You continue to misrepresent this. I said that Bernstein was estimating/guessing at the swr. I have no doubt that he did the Gordon equation correctly. The Gordon equation does not give a swr number.

You are finding the 2% number to be more reliable than Bernstein himself ("may not be entirely safe".) You have no real basis for this.
Have fun.

Ataloss
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by raddr »

hocus wrote:

I took nothing whatsoever out of context. I informed this board of where Bernstein stands on this matter accurately. You read the book, so you knew the context. You said that you "guessed" I offered the quote out of context, and you knew darn well that I didn't.

Why?


Okay, you asked. I think that you are so focused on getting back at intercst and and are so humiliated at being kicked off TMF's boards that you are grasping at anything you can find to defeat intercst and save face. My opinion is that you keep hammering away at that one Bernstein quote because it sounds so dogmatic. I think that it is out of context with the rest of his writings because he doesn't feel that it or any other equation will predict the future with any accuracy.

So yes, in my opinion, I think that the quote is out of context. You believe otherwise and I respect that.
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

You are finding the 2% number to be more reliable than Bernstein himself ("may not be entirely safe".) You have no real basis for this.

When Bernstein says that any withdrawal rate above 2 percent may not be entirely safe he is saying that you have to go down to 2 percent to have a number that survived in the worst case scenario. The SWR is defined for purposes of SWR analysis as the highest number that works in the worst-case scenario. Bernstein is saying that that special number--the number that on FIRE boards has always been referred to as the SWR--is 2 percent.
hocus
Moderator
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 12:56 am

Post by hocus »

You believe otherwise and I respect that.

That's the key.

I respect you for taking the other side.

Perhaps one of us will see what the other sees someday.
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by raddr »

hocus wrote:

Perhaps one of us will see what the other sees someday.


Yes, I hope so too.
therealchips
*** Veteran
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:00 am
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

Post by therealchips »

raddr wrote:
Investors are now begging for dividends and new tax laws greatly favor issuance of dividends but you don't see companies falling all over themselves to increase dividend payouts. Fact is, dividend payout ratios for the S&P500 are close to 50% which is near the historical norm. My read on all of this? The money ain't there.


Do you mean by that last statement that companies are reporting profits that don't exist and paying corporate income taxes on phantom profits? Where do I vote for a new board of directors?

It may be that a trend to increase dividends is underway. FWIW, this source says the dividend payout ratio for the S&P500 is now 35%. Stephen Taub, CFO.com, on July 18, 2003, wrote at http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,10033 ... f=features
Dividends Are In Again. Scores of companies lifting dividend payouts; tax cuts triggering the trend. . . .Thanks mostly to President Bush's cut of the top tax rate on dividends to 15 percent, a growing number of companies, especially large financial institutions, are increasing their payouts by huge percentages. And there is no reason to believe this trend will abate anytime soon. . . . These huge payouts are not just being favored by financial companies. Even tech companies, which until recently eschewed dividends altogether and even opposed the tax-rate reduction, are getting in on the action. . . So far this year, 124 issues in the S&P 500 have raised their dividends, compared with 104 increases last year, Howard Silverblatt, quantitative analyst at Standard & Poor's, told wire services. Of all companies that S&P tracks, 807 increased or resumed paying dividends in the first half of 2003. What's more, the number of companies in the S&P 500 index that pay dividends has actually risen by 5, from 351, finally reversing a two-decade trend. . . Still, there is a lot more room for growth in the payout. After dropping to a low of 30 percent at the height of the bull market, the payout has inched up to 35 percent. But this is way down from the historic average of around 50 percent.


More details at http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/ ... 24623.html
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by raddr »

therealchips wrote:

Do you mean by that last statement that companies are reporting profits that don't exist and paying corporate income taxes on phantom profits?


I believe that the "proforma" earnings craze has resulted in poor-quality inflated earnings for many S&P500 companies. Throw in the fact that pensions are underfunded and shareholder interests (thus earnings) are diluted with indiscriminate issuance of stock options and you have a pretty good case for poor earnings now and in the future. BTW, Bernstien, Buffet, Asness and a score of other very smart investors agree with me on this.


It may be that a trend to increase dividends is underway. FWIW, this source says the dividend payout ratio for the S&P500 is now 35%.


Yes, I checked and the dividend payout ratio is about 35% or about 10% below normal. So instead of a current yield of about 1.6% if you adjust to a "normal" payout ratio it would be about 2% - still pitiful by any standard. As I said, the money ain't there. :cry:
Post Reply