Historical Returns with Dollar Cost Averaging
Moderator: hocus2004
Historical Returns with Dollar Cost Averaging
I was surprised recently while looking at the accumulation phase of investing. There were several instances in which dollar cost averaging would have lost money at 15 years. This has caused me to reexamine my recommendations for investments during the next few years.
Normally, I would have almost always recommended dollar cost averaging into stocks. There are always exceptions due to individual circumstances, but this is different. We are most likely entering into an extended bear market. We need to revise our short- and intermediate-term recommendations. These are general updates, not limited to a few special cases.
Data Collection
I used my latest Deluxe Calculator V1.1A07, which is a modified version of the Retire Early Safe Withdrawal Calculator, Version 1.61, dated November 7, 2002.
I started with an initial balance of $1000 and made annual withdrawals equal to minus 100% of the initial balance (plus inflation). This corresponds to making annual deposits equal to plus 100% of the initial balance (plus inflation). I allocated 100% of the portfolio to stocks (as represented by the S&P500 index with all dividends reinvested). I set expenses equal to 0.00%.
I collected data on the balances at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years starting from 1871. In addition, I converted these balances into the percentage increases as compared to the amounts invested. That is, at five years, the total investment is $5000. I divided the balance at five years by $5000, subtracted 1 and then multiplied by 100%. This means that a balance of $6000 at 5 years is reported as a 20% increase (as compared to deposits totaling $5000). Similarly, at ten years the total investment was $10000. I divided the balance at ten years by $10000, subtracted 1 and then multiplied by 100%. And so on.
I reported negative percentage increases (i.e., losses) using parentheses. This makes them easy to identify.
Summary
There are several sequences that did worse than inflation-matched cash equivalents (i.e., TIPS and/or ibonds at an interest rate of 0.00%). Those in recent times started in the 1960s. Poorly performing portfolios consistently included the year 1975 as part of the dollar cost averaging period.
There were several additional sequences in earlier times during which dollar cost averaging did worse than inflation-matched cash equivalents.
I find it significant that the period of poor performance easily extends to ten and fifteen years. In 1899, 1901 and 1962, twenty years was not sufficient to equal inflation-matched cash equivalents.
Dollar cost averaging was superior most of the time. It was not superior all of the time. There are times when it is appropriate to preserve capital.
There is a weak relationship between the dollar cost average bonus and the percentage earnings yield in the first year of a sequence. R-squared ranges from 0.18 to 0.26. It takes an earnings yield above 6 to guarantee a positive advantage over 10 or 15 years. This corresponds to a P/E10 level of 17. It takes an earnings yield above 8 to assure an advantage at 5 years. This corresponds to a P/E10 level of 12 to 13.
Extrapolating (visually), today's P/E10 levels suggest that the odds of getting an advantage from dollar cost averaging (versus inflation-matched cash equivalents) is only slightly better than 50-50%.
At today's valuations and with today's stock market outlook, it is a good idea to consider alternatives to dollar cost averaging into the market as a whole. One attractive approach is to purchase income streams directly by focusing on dividends (i.e., using one of our dividends-based strategies). Buying TIPS and ibonds (while being careful about taxes) is an attractive alternative for those who may need to convert (some of) their holdings directly into cash quickly.
Have fun.
John R.
Normally, I would have almost always recommended dollar cost averaging into stocks. There are always exceptions due to individual circumstances, but this is different. We are most likely entering into an extended bear market. We need to revise our short- and intermediate-term recommendations. These are general updates, not limited to a few special cases.
Data Collection
I used my latest Deluxe Calculator V1.1A07, which is a modified version of the Retire Early Safe Withdrawal Calculator, Version 1.61, dated November 7, 2002.
I started with an initial balance of $1000 and made annual withdrawals equal to minus 100% of the initial balance (plus inflation). This corresponds to making annual deposits equal to plus 100% of the initial balance (plus inflation). I allocated 100% of the portfolio to stocks (as represented by the S&P500 index with all dividends reinvested). I set expenses equal to 0.00%.
I collected data on the balances at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years starting from 1871. In addition, I converted these balances into the percentage increases as compared to the amounts invested. That is, at five years, the total investment is $5000. I divided the balance at five years by $5000, subtracted 1 and then multiplied by 100%. This means that a balance of $6000 at 5 years is reported as a 20% increase (as compared to deposits totaling $5000). Similarly, at ten years the total investment was $10000. I divided the balance at ten years by $10000, subtracted 1 and then multiplied by 100%. And so on.
I reported negative percentage increases (i.e., losses) using parentheses. This makes them easy to identify.
Summary
There are several sequences that did worse than inflation-matched cash equivalents (i.e., TIPS and/or ibonds at an interest rate of 0.00%). Those in recent times started in the 1960s. Poorly performing portfolios consistently included the year 1975 as part of the dollar cost averaging period.
There were several additional sequences in earlier times during which dollar cost averaging did worse than inflation-matched cash equivalents.
I find it significant that the period of poor performance easily extends to ten and fifteen years. In 1899, 1901 and 1962, twenty years was not sufficient to equal inflation-matched cash equivalents.
Dollar cost averaging was superior most of the time. It was not superior all of the time. There are times when it is appropriate to preserve capital.
There is a weak relationship between the dollar cost average bonus and the percentage earnings yield in the first year of a sequence. R-squared ranges from 0.18 to 0.26. It takes an earnings yield above 6 to guarantee a positive advantage over 10 or 15 years. This corresponds to a P/E10 level of 17. It takes an earnings yield above 8 to assure an advantage at 5 years. This corresponds to a P/E10 level of 12 to 13.
Extrapolating (visually), today's P/E10 levels suggest that the odds of getting an advantage from dollar cost averaging (versus inflation-matched cash equivalents) is only slightly better than 50-50%.
At today's valuations and with today's stock market outlook, it is a good idea to consider alternatives to dollar cost averaging into the market as a whole. One attractive approach is to purchase income streams directly by focusing on dividends (i.e., using one of our dividends-based strategies). Buying TIPS and ibonds (while being careful about taxes) is an attractive alternative for those who may need to convert (some of) their holdings directly into cash quickly.
Have fun.
John R.
Dollar cost averaging $1000 per years for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years.
Year, 5-Year Balance, 10-Year Balance, 15-Year Balance, 20-Year Balance
Percentage increases follow.
Year, 5-Year Balance, 10-Year Balance, 15-Year Balance, 20-Year Balance
Code: Select all
1871 7756 24870 39583 51984
1872 6191 20864 39679 59051
1873 7040 21282 36678 56616
1874 8633 20651 37276 50966
1875 9587 18434 37609 49758
1876 10822 20867 29865 44493
1877 10705 24914 40634 51581
1878 9336 19952 33953 51177
1879 6584 14757 22268 44493
1880 6855 18019 26819 44599
1881 7324 13492 22644 44688
1882 8379 17526 25020 53573
1883 7808 17020 28839 52246
1884 8085 15629 35083 44382
1885 7966 14915 27476 49539
1886 6397 13727 30051 53010
1887 7275 13289 31358 46125
1888 7433 16090 31917 38073
1889 6665 19113 26462 47589
1890 6436 15024 29583 43725
1891 6987 19043 36504 46734
1892 6176 17975 28773 40032
1893 8318 20313 26513 46319
1894 9271 15590 30571 37746
1895 7334 17545 28307 31677
1896 8638 20245 28477 38959
1897 8681 17103 26277 33463
1898 7728 12658 24552 22622
1899 5513 13710 18852 18700
1900 7817 16027 20088 21963
1901 8127 14711 22703 18037
1902 6875 13645 19641 20244
1903 5952 14804 15481 28988
1904 7390 12726 14350 27300
1905 7118 11435 14430 33311
1906 6689 13302 12248 37110
1907 7240 13411 16052 43774
1908 6923 9191 19648 55521
1909 5554 8322 18068 71778
1910 5904 10023 25955 74011
1911 7023 8670 28875 57676
1912 6247 10025 29573 35307
1913 4751 13524 40999 36788
1914 5069 13922 58459 53777
1915 5351 16835 50204 45688
1916 4484 17800 37075 59439
1917 5440 18559 23054 69276
1918 7356 25097 23431 48024
1919 7123 33648 32588 51788
1920 9375 31745 31039 57213
Code: Select all
1921 11218 26588 46528 52184
1922 9897 14296 47523 34960
1923 11000 12469 28523 33479
1924 14169 17394 30850 37649
1925 10229 13422 27675 38205
1926 7641 18980 23966 49335
1927 4695 21984 18442 34320
1928 4522 14111 19123 30086
1929 6559 15308 21574 30834
1930 6562 16886 26507 38767
1931 10322 15672 35976 48095
1932 13041 13054 26562 53699
1933 7424 12205 20860 50392
1934 7161 12979 20446 46089
1935 7146 14707 23792 64407
1936 5654 17822 26839 74471
1937 4775 13114 29889 73815
1938 5897 12788 34026 67123
1939 6817 13295 32478 85130
1940 7636 15137 43974 83747
1941 9232 16656 48811 75938
1942 6917 18836 48900 86380
1943 6163 20043 41876 77749
1944 6215 18562 51589 83237
1945 6966 24617 49723 86366
1946 7080 24895 41198 74795
1947 8580 26076 48898 68324
1948 9518 23179 45706 74322
1949 8751 28413 48914 71272
1950 10089 23875 44518 49566
1951 11004 21922 43168 45384
1952 10033 23270 35662 46022
1953 7972 19573 35119 46480
1954 9751 20965 33810 33310
1955 8397 20147 25222 21295
1956 7607 19214 22891 25121
1957 8280 16093 23548 25259
1958 7573 17098 25629 21471
1959 7788 16083 18211 21523
1960 8185 13041 12678 21343
1961 8268 12694 16136 23470
1962 6796 13068 16392 19731
1963 7223 14197 13989 24002
1964 7007 10526 14665 27009
1965 5753 7543 14827 27285
1966 5719 9786 16349 31919
1967 6343 10512 14330 40312
1968 6848 9062 17513 36813
1969 5212 9663 19713 39767
1970 4088 10282 20641 45822
1971 5587 11753 24889 42637
1972 5933 10210 30957 52347
1973 5032 12066 27047 50029
1974 5651 13807 29412 52157
1975 6302 14920 34841 51993
1976 6618 16890 30632 63424
1977 5627 20320 36427 72286
1978 6892 18049 35377 83973
1979 7213 18093 34193 95578
1980 7131 19717 31554 99736
1981 8083 17366 38635 85304
1982 10042 21428 45684 69717
1983 8094 19451 50045
1984 8118 19020 57646
1985 8514 16999 57906
1986 7191 20208 47921
1987 8041 21724 35623
1988 7866 25053
1989 7692 28566
1990 6875 28258
1991 8653 24146
1992 9191 17833
1993 10431
1994 11682
1995 11369
1996 8420
1997 6262
Percentage increases over amount invested when dollar cost averaging of $1000 per years for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years.
Year, 5 Years, 10 Years, 15 Years, 20 Years
Have fun.
John R.
Year, 5 Years, 10 Years, 15 Years, 20 Years
Code: Select all
1871 55.13 148.70 163.89 159.92
1872 23.82 108.64 164.53 195.26
1873 40.80 112.82 144.52 183.08
1874 72.65 106.51 148.51 154.83
1875 91.75 84.34 150.73 148.79
1876 116.45 108.67 99.10 122.47
1877 114.09 149.14 170.89 157.91
1878 86.72 99.52 126.35 155.89
1879 31.69 47.57 48.45 122.46
1880 37.09 80.19 78.80 123.00
1881 46.48 34.92 50.96 123.44
1882 67.57 75.26 66.80 167.86
1883 56.15 70.20 92.26 161.23
1884 61.70 56.29 133.89 121.91
1885 59.32 49.15 83.17 147.70
1886 27.94 37.27 100.34 165.05
1887 45.50 32.89 109.05 130.63
1888 48.66 60.90 112.78 90.36
1889 33.29 91.13 76.41 137.95
1890 28.72 50.24 97.22 118.63
1891 39.74 90.43 143.36 133.67
1892 23.52 79.75 91.82 100.16
1893 66.36 103.13 76.76 131.59
1894 85.42 55.90 103.80 88.73
1895 46.68 75.45 88.71 58.39
1896 72.75 102.45 89.85 94.79
1897 73.61 71.03 75.18 67.32
1898 54.56 26.58 63.68 13.11
1899 10.25 37.10 25.68 (6.50)
1900 56.35 60.27 33.92 9.81
1901 62.53 47.11 51.36 (9.81)
1902 37.50 36.45 30.94 1.22
1903 19.03 48.04 3.20 44.94
1904 47.80 27.26 (4.33) 36.50
1905 42.36 14.35 (3.80) 66.55
1906 33.77 33.02 (18.35) 85.55
1907 44.79 34.11 7.02 118.87
1908 38.45 (8.09) 30.98 177.61
1909 11.08 (16.78) 20.45 258.89
1910 18.07 0.23 73.04 270.05
1911 40.47 (13.30) 92.50 188.38
1912 24.93 0.25 97.15 76.54
1913 (4.97) 35.24 173.33 83.94
1914 1.38 39.22 289.73 168.89
1915 7.03 68.35 234.69 128.44
1916 (10.33) 78.00 147.17 197.19
1917 8.81 85.59 53.69 246.38
1918 47.12 150.97 56.21 140.12
1919 42.45 236.48 117.26 158.94
1920 87.50 217.45 106.93 186.06
Code: Select all
1921 124.37 165.88 210.19 160.92
1922 97.94 42.96 216.82 74.80
1923 120.00 24.69 90.15 67.40
1924 183.38 73.94 105.66 88.25
1925 104.58 34.22 84.50 91.02
1926 52.83 89.80 59.77 146.68
1927 (6.09) 119.84 22.95 71.60
1928 (9.57) 41.11 27.48 50.43
1929 31.17 53.08 43.83 54.17
1930 31.24 68.86 76.71 93.84
1931 106.44 56.72 139.84 140.47
1932 160.83 30.54 77.08 168.49
1933 48.49 22.05 39.07 151.96
1934 43.22 29.79 36.31 130.44
1935 42.92 47.07 58.61 222.03
1936 13.07 78.22 78.92 272.35
1937 (4.50) 31.14 99.26 269.08
1938 17.93 27.88 126.84 235.61
1939 36.34 32.95 116.52 325.65
1940 52.73 51.37 193.16 318.74
1941 84.63 66.56 225.40 279.69
1942 38.34 88.36 226.00 331.90
1943 23.27 100.43 179.17 288.74
1944 24.29 85.62 243.93 316.18
1945 39.32 146.17 231.49 331.83
1946 41.59 148.95 174.66 273.98
1947 71.60 160.76 225.99 241.62
1948 90.37 131.79 204.71 271.61
1949 75.02 184.13 226.09 256.36
1950 101.78 138.75 196.79 147.83
1951 120.07 119.22 187.79 126.92
1952 100.66 132.70 137.75 130.11
1953 59.44 95.73 134.13 132.40
1954 95.01 109.65 125.40 66.55
1955 67.95 101.47 68.14 6.47
1956 52.13 92.14 52.61 25.60
1957 65.60 60.93 56.99 26.30
1958 51.46 70.98 70.86 7.35
1959 55.76 60.83 21.41 7.61
1960 63.70 30.41 (15.48) 6.71
1961 65.35 26.94 7.57 17.35
1962 35.92 30.68 9.28 (1.35)
1963 44.45 41.97 (6.74) 20.01
1964 40.14 5.26 (2.23) 35.04
1965 15.05 (24.57) (1.15) 36.43
1966 14.38 (2.14) 9.00 59.60
1967 26.86 5.12 (4.47) 101.56
1968 36.96 (9.38) 16.75 84.06
1969 4.24 (3.37) 31.42 98.83
1970 (18.24) 2.82 37.61 129.11
1971 11.73 17.53 65.92 113.18
1972 18.65 2.10 106.38 161.73
1973 0.63 20.66 80.31 150.14
1974 13.03 38.07 96.08 160.78
1975 26.04 49.20 132.27 159.96
1976 32.35 68.90 104.21 217.12
1977 12.54 103.20 142.85 261.43
1978 37.83 80.49 135.85 319.86
1979 44.25 80.93 127.95 377.89
1980 42.61 97.17 110.36 398.68
1981 61.67 73.66 157.56 326.52
1982 100.85 114.28 204.56 248.59
1983 61.88 94.51 233.63
1984 62.35 90.20 284.31
1985 70.28 69.99 286.04
1986 43.83 102.08 219.47
1987 60.82 117.24 137.49
1988 57.32 150.53
1989 53.83 185.66
1990 37.49 182.58
1991 73.06 141.46
1992 83.82 78.33
1993 108.63
1994 133.64
1995 127.38
1996 68.41
1997 25.24
John R.
"Dollar cost averaging was superior most of the time. It was not superior all of the time. There are times when it is appropriate to preserve capital. "
I agree that this is a highly significant finding, JWR1945.
Conceptually, I think we are just seeing a different version of the same dynamic that applied re SWRs. Say that long-term stock returns were not correlated with starting-point valuation levels, that we lived in a world in which stocks provided the same sorts of long-term returns as they provide in the real world but in which it was not possible to engage in long-term timing. In those circumstances, I believe that dollar-cost averaging would always work equally well.
The reason why dollar-cost averaging generally "works" is that stock investments generally "work." What you are doing with dollar-cost averaging is diminishing one of the short-term risks of stock investing. If you don't dollar-cost average, there's a chance that you will put a large amount of money into stocks just prior to a short-term price drop and suffer the long-term consequences of doing so. By dollar-cost averaging, you are able to tap into the long-term benefits while side-stepping some of the potential short-term downside.
Your research shows that 4 percent is a rough approximation of the SWR that applies at average valuation levels. At some valuation levels it is a little higher, at some a little lower, at some a lot higher, and at some a lot lower. The SWR varies with changes in valuation levels. It seems to me to follow that dollar-cost averaging should also provide better results in some circumstances and worse results in others.
The succinct way of saying it is to observe that the intrinsic value of a stock investment varies with changes in valuation levels. You just are not buying the same thing when you buy at a low valuation level as you are when you buy at a high valuation level.
What throws people is that the intrinsic value of stock investment is good enough at moderate valuation levels to cause people to feel that it is not worth the trouble to calculate the difference that valuations make. The intuitive impression seems to be that, if valuations matter, then stocks should provide a neutral result at moderate valuation levels. If that were so, I think more people would "get it." They would see that stock investing has elements of a gamble to it, and that you put the odds on your side by taking note of the effect of valuations.
The reality is that stocks provide a far better than neutral return at moderate valuation levels. There is an element of gambling involved in stock investing. But there is also an element of participation in the returns of a business enterprise. When the gamble is neutral (times of moderate returns), the expected return is positive (one that generates a 4 percent SWR). It's only when valuations are very high that expected stock return fall to the neutral level, and those circumstances turn up rarely enough that people are able to fool themselves into believing that they do not matter.
Stocks are partly an investment and partly a gamble. The investment aspect overwhelms the gambling aspect at low valuation levels. At low valuation levels, you don't need to be lucky to get a good long-term return; it is a virtual certainty that you will. At moderate valuation levels, you are also likely to get a good return, but if you are unlucky it is possible that you will not get a return better than what is needed to support a 4 percent withdrawal (which is an OK return but not a great one). At extremely high valuation levels, you need to be lucky to get a return providing a higher SWR than what you could get with less volatile asset classes. At extremely high valuation levels, an unlucky returns sequence can wipe you out if you are taking a 4 percent withdrawal,.
I believe that what you are seeing with the dollar-cost averaging results in another showing of the significance of our finding that returns are correlated with valuation levels. This insight reaches in all sorts of directions. There are all sorts of things we can discover by following this insight where it leads us.
The thing that makes it hard for people to accept the discoveries made at this board is that they are so huge in importance that it strikes people as impossible that a few guys at a discussion board could come up with them. We just happened to be at the right place at the right time. What makes these discoveries possible is the nature of SWR analysis. When you are exchanging words back and forth, you can never get precise enough in your findings to develop the sorts of insights we have developed here. SWR analysis imposes a necessary discipline on the discussions. There is a precision to numbers-based analyses that does not exist with word-exchange analysis.
This is why I reject out of hand the suggestion put forward by a number of DCMs that the community should change the definition of SWR now that we have found that intercst got the number wrong. If we change to definition of SWR in such a way as to make the intercst findings plausible, we greatly undermine the power of the tool. SWR analysis is too valuable to discard just because one community member happened to get a number wrong in a study and is not man enough to acknowledge it.
Anyway, I think that your findings re dollar-cost averaging are exciting. I will be thinking more about the implications of the insights you have put forward in this thread in days to come.
I agree that this is a highly significant finding, JWR1945.
Conceptually, I think we are just seeing a different version of the same dynamic that applied re SWRs. Say that long-term stock returns were not correlated with starting-point valuation levels, that we lived in a world in which stocks provided the same sorts of long-term returns as they provide in the real world but in which it was not possible to engage in long-term timing. In those circumstances, I believe that dollar-cost averaging would always work equally well.
The reason why dollar-cost averaging generally "works" is that stock investments generally "work." What you are doing with dollar-cost averaging is diminishing one of the short-term risks of stock investing. If you don't dollar-cost average, there's a chance that you will put a large amount of money into stocks just prior to a short-term price drop and suffer the long-term consequences of doing so. By dollar-cost averaging, you are able to tap into the long-term benefits while side-stepping some of the potential short-term downside.
Your research shows that 4 percent is a rough approximation of the SWR that applies at average valuation levels. At some valuation levels it is a little higher, at some a little lower, at some a lot higher, and at some a lot lower. The SWR varies with changes in valuation levels. It seems to me to follow that dollar-cost averaging should also provide better results in some circumstances and worse results in others.
The succinct way of saying it is to observe that the intrinsic value of a stock investment varies with changes in valuation levels. You just are not buying the same thing when you buy at a low valuation level as you are when you buy at a high valuation level.
What throws people is that the intrinsic value of stock investment is good enough at moderate valuation levels to cause people to feel that it is not worth the trouble to calculate the difference that valuations make. The intuitive impression seems to be that, if valuations matter, then stocks should provide a neutral result at moderate valuation levels. If that were so, I think more people would "get it." They would see that stock investing has elements of a gamble to it, and that you put the odds on your side by taking note of the effect of valuations.
The reality is that stocks provide a far better than neutral return at moderate valuation levels. There is an element of gambling involved in stock investing. But there is also an element of participation in the returns of a business enterprise. When the gamble is neutral (times of moderate returns), the expected return is positive (one that generates a 4 percent SWR). It's only when valuations are very high that expected stock return fall to the neutral level, and those circumstances turn up rarely enough that people are able to fool themselves into believing that they do not matter.
Stocks are partly an investment and partly a gamble. The investment aspect overwhelms the gambling aspect at low valuation levels. At low valuation levels, you don't need to be lucky to get a good long-term return; it is a virtual certainty that you will. At moderate valuation levels, you are also likely to get a good return, but if you are unlucky it is possible that you will not get a return better than what is needed to support a 4 percent withdrawal (which is an OK return but not a great one). At extremely high valuation levels, you need to be lucky to get a return providing a higher SWR than what you could get with less volatile asset classes. At extremely high valuation levels, an unlucky returns sequence can wipe you out if you are taking a 4 percent withdrawal,.
I believe that what you are seeing with the dollar-cost averaging results in another showing of the significance of our finding that returns are correlated with valuation levels. This insight reaches in all sorts of directions. There are all sorts of things we can discover by following this insight where it leads us.
The thing that makes it hard for people to accept the discoveries made at this board is that they are so huge in importance that it strikes people as impossible that a few guys at a discussion board could come up with them. We just happened to be at the right place at the right time. What makes these discoveries possible is the nature of SWR analysis. When you are exchanging words back and forth, you can never get precise enough in your findings to develop the sorts of insights we have developed here. SWR analysis imposes a necessary discipline on the discussions. There is a precision to numbers-based analyses that does not exist with word-exchange analysis.
This is why I reject out of hand the suggestion put forward by a number of DCMs that the community should change the definition of SWR now that we have found that intercst got the number wrong. If we change to definition of SWR in such a way as to make the intercst findings plausible, we greatly undermine the power of the tool. SWR analysis is too valuable to discard just because one community member happened to get a number wrong in a study and is not man enough to acknowledge it.
Anyway, I think that your findings re dollar-cost averaging are exciting. I will be thinking more about the implications of the insights you have put forward in this thread in days to come.
I recommend looking closely at Figure 1.2 in Professor Shiller's data. It is a plot P/E10 versus years.
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data/ie_data.htm
I think that there is a story in this graph that is more useful than the first year's value of P/E10. The graph shows how multiples have risen and fallen.
In terms of my data, the years 1919, 1921 and 1975 stand out as being especially important. [Look at the dollar cost averaging results after ten years and then add ten years. That gets you to 1919, 1921 and 1975. You can see the same thing by looking at the fifteen year results and adding 15 years and so on.]
You will notice a general relationship between how P/E10 has varied over time and these years. The relationship is not precise, possibly because dollar cost averaging spreads things out over time.
An alternative interpretation would be to focus on a single especially bad year. Dollar cost averaging builds up a portfolio, but a bad year right at the end hurts a lot. This corresponds to my general observation that preserving capital is most important when you have capital to preserve.
Have fun.
John R.
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data/ie_data.htm
I think that there is a story in this graph that is more useful than the first year's value of P/E10. The graph shows how multiples have risen and fallen.
In terms of my data, the years 1919, 1921 and 1975 stand out as being especially important. [Look at the dollar cost averaging results after ten years and then add ten years. That gets you to 1919, 1921 and 1975. You can see the same thing by looking at the fifteen year results and adding 15 years and so on.]
You will notice a general relationship between how P/E10 has varied over time and these years. The relationship is not precise, possibly because dollar cost averaging spreads things out over time.
An alternative interpretation would be to focus on a single especially bad year. Dollar cost averaging builds up a portfolio, but a bad year right at the end hurts a lot. This corresponds to my general observation that preserving capital is most important when you have capital to preserve.
Have fun.
John R.
- ElSupremo
- Admin Board Member
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Greetings John
I agree with that John. Don't you think, as a general rule, this is more important toward the end of the accumulation phase than in the early stages? I've seen so many get hurt by "over investing" in their late 50's and early 60's. A continuation of the DCA approach while cutting back on market exposure when approaching retirement seems sound. That's been my plan for many years. I haven't seen any reason to change it. If you have sufficient funds for your retirement, why risk those funds? Just pondering.This corresponds to my general observation that preserving capital is most important when you have capital to preserve.
Yes - I agree - remember if you are planning to ER, then defense can arrive early since retirement is not 65. The balance between offense/defense is a judgement call
Sans numbers - I plugged away on my 401k - even though I 'knew' I might not be matching inflation. Hindsight being - had I owned a crystal ball - 100% stocks - instead of 50/50.
Stocks are not manditory - but building a nest egg to allocate is - so you have something to play offense/defense with.
Sans numbers - I plugged away on my 401k - even though I 'knew' I might not be matching inflation. Hindsight being - had I owned a crystal ball - 100% stocks - instead of 50/50.
Stocks are not manditory - but building a nest egg to allocate is - so you have something to play offense/defense with.
ES
From An Illusion of Numbers dated Sun Apr 25, 2004.
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2416
Consider changing the composition of your stock market exposure as well.
This has come up in our recent investigations of dividends-based strategies. One approach to financing one's retirement is to purchase income streams in the form of dividends that are likely to keep up or grow faster than inflation. The quality of dividends is much more amenable to analysis than prices in the short- and intermediate-terms (i.e., for the first ten years or so).
It turns out that carefully implemented dividend-based strategies have outperformed the market as a whole.
What is even better for your own purposes is that Alec has already identified a couple of good index fund/ETF choices in quality companies with high dividends. This gives you instant diversification and it frees you from having to select individual securities.
It is a good idea to include ibonds and/or TIPS, as you have indicated, as opposed to converting your holdings entirely to high dividend stocks. Income streams from dividends are not sufficient. Stock prices fluctuate a lot, even the prices of high dividend stocks. There will always be times when you need cash right away and selling stocks is a bad idea. Even if you do not need cash to spend, you might like to redeploy your money when bargains become available.
Have fun.
John R.
I agree with you totally. I addressed this first when I first became aware of its importance.I agree with that John. Don't you think, as a general rule, this is more important toward the end of the accumulation phase than in the early stages? I've seen so many get hurt by "over investing" in their late 50's and early 60's.
From An Illusion of Numbers dated Sun Apr 25, 2004.
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2416
These three conditions are similar in many respects. But they are quite different.
In the first case, there were no contributions and no withdrawals. In the second, there were only contributions. In the third, there were only withdrawals.
Looking at the second and third examples, we see that when the bad year happens is tremendously important. Its importance is greatest when the balance is greatest. Its importance is smallest when the portfolio balance is smallest.
Thus, we can say that having a bad year does not matter too much when you have no money (or when you have very little money).
In one of my recent investigations into the accumulation stage, I found that following 15 years of dollar cost averaging into 100% stocks with 15 years of preserving capital (using 2% TIPS and varying allocations in accordance with P/E10) was a winning approach. It reduced risk much, much more than it gave away in terms of any upside potential.ES wrote:A continuation of the DCA approach while cutting back on market exposure when approaching retirement seems sound. That's been my plan for many years. I haven't seen any reason to change it. If you have sufficient funds for your retirement, why risk those funds? Just pondering.
Consider changing the composition of your stock market exposure as well.
This has come up in our recent investigations of dividends-based strategies. One approach to financing one's retirement is to purchase income streams in the form of dividends that are likely to keep up or grow faster than inflation. The quality of dividends is much more amenable to analysis than prices in the short- and intermediate-terms (i.e., for the first ten years or so).
It turns out that carefully implemented dividend-based strategies have outperformed the market as a whole.
What is even better for your own purposes is that Alec has already identified a couple of good index fund/ETF choices in quality companies with high dividends. This gives you instant diversification and it frees you from having to select individual securities.
It is a good idea to include ibonds and/or TIPS, as you have indicated, as opposed to converting your holdings entirely to high dividend stocks. Income streams from dividends are not sufficient. Stock prices fluctuate a lot, even the prices of high dividend stocks. There will always be times when you need cash right away and selling stocks is a bad idea. Even if you do not need cash to spend, you might like to redeploy your money when bargains become available.
Have fun.
John R.
To me this is the most natural thing in the world. Perhaps it is my engineering background and the nature of my work before retirement.hocus2004 wrote:The thing that makes it hard for people to accept the discoveries made at this board is that they are so huge in importance that it strikes people as impossible that a few guys at a discussion board could come up with them. We just happened to be at the right place at the right time. What makes these discoveries possible is the nature of SWR analysis. When you are exchanging words back and forth, you can never get precise enough in your findings to develop the sorts of insights we have developed here. SWR analysis imposes a necessary discipline on the discussions. There is a precision to numbers-based analyses that does not exist with word-exchange analysis.
The tools needed to make these investigations did not exist until recently. Before then, any investigation posed a tremendous software programming challenge. But in 2002 John Greaney developed the latest version of the Retire Early Safe Withdrawal Calculator using an Excel spreadsheet and he made it available for downloading. [He had made earlier versions of the calculator. What was still missing were the right questions to be answered.]
Engineers are well aware that Excel has a tremendously powerful software capability. This includes its ability to produce graphs and to fit curves.
The basic tools needed to conduct our analyses are the combination of having a good calculator and having it programmed as an Excel spreadsheet. My modifications have helped as well, primarily in terms of data reduction.
The only additional element that was needed was to have someone who was interested in the results and who asked a lot of questions.
Have fun.
John R.
- ElSupremo
- Admin Board Member
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Greetings unclemick
Yep that's the way it is for me. I started my defense a couple of years ago with a target FIRE of 55. Playing off what John said my defensive hedge will be in RE with a few income producing properties in the mix.Yes - I agree - remember if you are planning to ER, then defense can arrive early since retirement is not 65. The balance between offense/defense is a judgement call
- ElSupremo
- Admin Board Member
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Greetings John
Your work here and the contributions of those you've mentioned has helped much and again I thank you, and them for all the effort.
I've been reading what you folks have been saying about this for a while now and it's something I'm considering. When time allows I plan on doing more extensive research along these lines with an eye toward implementing this in my own portfolio down the road.It turns out that carefully implemented dividend-based strategies have outperformed the market as a whole.
Your work here and the contributions of those you've mentioned has helped much and again I thank you, and them for all the effort.
"Your work here and the contributions of those you've mentioned has helped much and again I thank you, and them for all the effort. "
It's not exactly clear but my presumption is that you meant to convey your appreciation to me with your phrase "the contributions of those you've mentioned." If that is indeed the case, I am glad to hear you give me the credit I am due here. I think it sends a message to the entire community when the object of a long-running Smear Capaign is publicly thanked for the many positive contributions he had made. That's the sort of thing that visitors here need to hear before they are going to feel safe once again venturing to post at this place.
I'd like to see you go a few steps further in days to come. ES. Conveying thanks to me (presuming that that is what you intended with the words quoted above) is a start. You also need to provide the community assurances that Ataloss-type posters will not be welcomed here in the event that they darken our doorstep again in the future. I don't think that anyone has an objection to Ataloss or anyone else coming here if he plays by the same rules that all others play by (and that Ataloss himself agreed to play by when he signed up here). But if Ataloss comes back and then sends signals with his posting that he is back to destroy once again, the matter should be dealt with and the matter should be dealt with promtly.
Boards don't build themselves, ES. It takes work. Publication of my book has been delayed two years while I dealt with the nonsense gibberish put forward by the DCMs. There comes a point where I should not be expected to be required to carry that burden by myself any longer. I have given consideration to the idea of putting up a link at my web site to this board. I cannot in good conscience do that unless I hear some sort of word from you as to what sort of board you intend for it to be in the future. If I hear that you intend for it to be the sort of board that the FIRE board was in its Golden Age, then I of course want to do what I can to make that happen. If you intend to sit on your hands the next time that Ataloss or an Ataloss-type poster darkens our doorstep, I don't want visitors to my web site being exposed to that sort of ugliness.
My sense is that you are not prepared to put forward a clear statement today. Given the harm that Ataloss has done to you (by hurting the site, he hurts you too), I have a hard time understanding your hesitation. But given the wonderful work that JWR1945 has done for this community and given the importance of the SWR issue, I don't see that I have much choice but to wait this thing out a little longer.
If you get to a point where you feel comfortable in saying that you will enforce the rules in a reasonable way regardless of any past relationship you have with the poster causing the problem, please do so. You seem to me to have a genuine interest in doing work to advance the development of ther internet discussion-board communications medium. We have a tiger by the tale with this SWR issue. If we explored that issue in depth (and in a reasoned manner) at this board, I believe that we could set the internet on fire and ultimately set the investing world on fire. We have all experienced pain because of mistakes of the past, but the joy that we could experience by doing the right thing in the future would compensate 10 times over, in my estimation. There are many, many people out in the world who very much want to know what the historical data really says. You would be a hero in their eyes if you could work up the courage to do the right thing for community as a whole, for yourself, and yes, even for Ataloss. It is degrading to him that you offer him special treatment. The suggestion is that he is some kind of child that is incapable of playing by the same rules that apply to all others. He begins growing up when the rest of us make clear that we will insist on him either growing up or taking his leave of the playing field (the same applies to intercst, of course).
There are a good number in the community who are watching to see what you do before they make their own decisions. If you were to make a clear statement about your future intentions re this matter, I think we might get BenSolar back. I think we might get Wanderer back. I think we might get FoolMeOnce back. I think we might get PeteyPerson back. Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I think we might get raddr back.
Are we fish or foul? Are we Information Seekers here or are we Disruptor? Are we Straight Shooters or are we Defenders of the Conventional Methodology? The longer we go without answering those questions, the harder it becomes for us to make the right choices down the road. That's because community members need to line up on one side or the other and they need to hear that they will be protected if they choose the side that will allow the community to grow. You own the site, so your decision counts for more than the decisions of many others. You could swing this in a positive direction by making a choice in favor of decency and honesty and civility and a choice against word games and personal attack and deception.
Please think this over. Please think back to the time when you started the board and the goals that you had in mind for it then. Please put the little bit of power that you possess as owner of this site to work in opposition to the Ataloss agenda, or at least against the agenda that has come to be the obsession of Ataloss over the course of the past year or two.
You said on another thread that you don't give "a rat's ass" about any personal agendas that posters have. If you don't give a rat's ass about Ataloss's personal agenda, why not apply the same rules to him that apply to all the rest of us? Why not make the statement we need to hear so that we all can go back to talking about the subject matter of the board and not all need to live in fear of when we are going to experience the next visitation of the DCMs? I don't give a rat's ass about the personal jazz either. That's why I have made such a point of saying that no one poster can tell us what we can post and what we cannot post. No one poster or small group of posters should be able to intimidate the rest of us into compliance with their personal agendas. Those of us who don't give a rat's ass about these petty games that Ataloss and intercst play need to begin acting like it. We need to stand up to these individuals and tell them in clear and certain terms that, if they can't post according to the rules that govern us all, they are kindly invited to direct their posting energies elsewhere.
It's not exactly clear but my presumption is that you meant to convey your appreciation to me with your phrase "the contributions of those you've mentioned." If that is indeed the case, I am glad to hear you give me the credit I am due here. I think it sends a message to the entire community when the object of a long-running Smear Capaign is publicly thanked for the many positive contributions he had made. That's the sort of thing that visitors here need to hear before they are going to feel safe once again venturing to post at this place.
I'd like to see you go a few steps further in days to come. ES. Conveying thanks to me (presuming that that is what you intended with the words quoted above) is a start. You also need to provide the community assurances that Ataloss-type posters will not be welcomed here in the event that they darken our doorstep again in the future. I don't think that anyone has an objection to Ataloss or anyone else coming here if he plays by the same rules that all others play by (and that Ataloss himself agreed to play by when he signed up here). But if Ataloss comes back and then sends signals with his posting that he is back to destroy once again, the matter should be dealt with and the matter should be dealt with promtly.
Boards don't build themselves, ES. It takes work. Publication of my book has been delayed two years while I dealt with the nonsense gibberish put forward by the DCMs. There comes a point where I should not be expected to be required to carry that burden by myself any longer. I have given consideration to the idea of putting up a link at my web site to this board. I cannot in good conscience do that unless I hear some sort of word from you as to what sort of board you intend for it to be in the future. If I hear that you intend for it to be the sort of board that the FIRE board was in its Golden Age, then I of course want to do what I can to make that happen. If you intend to sit on your hands the next time that Ataloss or an Ataloss-type poster darkens our doorstep, I don't want visitors to my web site being exposed to that sort of ugliness.
My sense is that you are not prepared to put forward a clear statement today. Given the harm that Ataloss has done to you (by hurting the site, he hurts you too), I have a hard time understanding your hesitation. But given the wonderful work that JWR1945 has done for this community and given the importance of the SWR issue, I don't see that I have much choice but to wait this thing out a little longer.
If you get to a point where you feel comfortable in saying that you will enforce the rules in a reasonable way regardless of any past relationship you have with the poster causing the problem, please do so. You seem to me to have a genuine interest in doing work to advance the development of ther internet discussion-board communications medium. We have a tiger by the tale with this SWR issue. If we explored that issue in depth (and in a reasoned manner) at this board, I believe that we could set the internet on fire and ultimately set the investing world on fire. We have all experienced pain because of mistakes of the past, but the joy that we could experience by doing the right thing in the future would compensate 10 times over, in my estimation. There are many, many people out in the world who very much want to know what the historical data really says. You would be a hero in their eyes if you could work up the courage to do the right thing for community as a whole, for yourself, and yes, even for Ataloss. It is degrading to him that you offer him special treatment. The suggestion is that he is some kind of child that is incapable of playing by the same rules that apply to all others. He begins growing up when the rest of us make clear that we will insist on him either growing up or taking his leave of the playing field (the same applies to intercst, of course).
There are a good number in the community who are watching to see what you do before they make their own decisions. If you were to make a clear statement about your future intentions re this matter, I think we might get BenSolar back. I think we might get Wanderer back. I think we might get FoolMeOnce back. I think we might get PeteyPerson back. Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I think we might get raddr back.
Are we fish or foul? Are we Information Seekers here or are we Disruptor? Are we Straight Shooters or are we Defenders of the Conventional Methodology? The longer we go without answering those questions, the harder it becomes for us to make the right choices down the road. That's because community members need to line up on one side or the other and they need to hear that they will be protected if they choose the side that will allow the community to grow. You own the site, so your decision counts for more than the decisions of many others. You could swing this in a positive direction by making a choice in favor of decency and honesty and civility and a choice against word games and personal attack and deception.
Please think this over. Please think back to the time when you started the board and the goals that you had in mind for it then. Please put the little bit of power that you possess as owner of this site to work in opposition to the Ataloss agenda, or at least against the agenda that has come to be the obsession of Ataloss over the course of the past year or two.
You said on another thread that you don't give "a rat's ass" about any personal agendas that posters have. If you don't give a rat's ass about Ataloss's personal agenda, why not apply the same rules to him that apply to all the rest of us? Why not make the statement we need to hear so that we all can go back to talking about the subject matter of the board and not all need to live in fear of when we are going to experience the next visitation of the DCMs? I don't give a rat's ass about the personal jazz either. That's why I have made such a point of saying that no one poster can tell us what we can post and what we cannot post. No one poster or small group of posters should be able to intimidate the rest of us into compliance with their personal agendas. Those of us who don't give a rat's ass about these petty games that Ataloss and intercst play need to begin acting like it. We need to stand up to these individuals and tell them in clear and certain terms that, if they can't post according to the rules that govern us all, they are kindly invited to direct their posting energies elsewhere.
- ElSupremo
- Admin Board Member
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Greetings hocus
I only care to respond further to one or two items of your post:
He's got this paranoid thing going now that I've somehow sabotaged him but it's just not true. I hope he posts here again some day. If not I wish him nothing but the best. He was my friend and I miss him.
If you really want a complement here's one for you. I appreciate your moderation of this board.
WOW! How in the name of Mt. Everest did you come up with this? My only intent was to complement JOHN for his research and posting efforts. He also mentioned Alec in connection with the dividend thing so I added "others".It's not exactly clear but my presumption is that you meant to convey your appreciation to me with your phrase "the contributions of those you've mentioned
I only care to respond further to one or two items of your post:
Let me tell you about ataloss. I would welcome him back no questions asked! The only thing ataloss ever did was help me manage this place, contribute 1000's of posts here, get the wool pulled over his eyes by the mentally impaired raddr, and disagree with you!You also need to provide the community assurances that Ataloss-type posters will not be welcomed here in the event that they darken our doorstep again in the future.
He's got this paranoid thing going now that I've somehow sabotaged him but it's just not true. I hope he posts here again some day. If not I wish him nothing but the best. He was my friend and I miss him.
Here is a clear statement. Anyone who wants may post at NFB. Just like you they will have their right to express their opinions. If two members disagree they will just have to be adult enough to either work out their differences or agree to disagree. As I've said before my hand holding days are over. So it's pretty simple now. Post here if you want. If not, post somewhere else.My sense is that you are not prepared to put forward a clear statement today.
If you really want a complement here's one for you. I appreciate your moderation of this board.
"WOW! How in the name of Mt. Everest did you come up with this? My only intent was to complement JOHN for his research and posting efforts. He also mentioned Alec in connection with the dividend thing so I added "others"."
JWR1945's post made reference to the role I have played, and you expressed thanks not only to JWR1945 but to others who he made reference to. So I don't think I was making so big a logical jump.
In any event, you should be thanking me for a lot more than my moderation of this forum, ES. The best days in this site's history were the early days, when there were extensive in-depth and informed discussions of the SWR topic at the FIRE board. I am the one who got the ball rolling on that topic, and I contributed many posts to those discussions. It is those sorts of discussions that get a discussion board site off the ground. I did that for you and you should properly be grateful for the role I played.
"Let me tell you about ataloss. I would welcome him back no questions asked! The only thing ataloss ever did was help me manage this place, contribute 1000's of posts here, get the wool pulled over his eyes by the mentally impaired raddr, and disagree with you!"
The Post Archives do not back you up on this, ES. Ataloss was the leader of the DCMs here. It was not raddr who enticed Ataloss into the DCM camp but Ataloss who enticed raddr. Had you taken action on Ataloss at an appropriate time, all of our troubles would have been averted. You have allowed your personal relationship with him to influence you re your responsibilities as site administrator.
"As I've said before my hand holding days are over"
If you have no intent of administering the posting rules in a reasonable manner, you should not ask newcomers to the site to read the rules. The clear suggestion of having rules posted is that the rules will be administered in a reasonable manner.
People have a right to know what they are getting into when they come to a site. If your intent is for this to be the wild-west shoot-them-up sort of site that JWR1945 quite properly described it to be in an earlier post, then you should let people know that that is the case. You have the right to run the site only for a small group of personal friends if that is what you elect to do. But you have a responsibility to let newcomers to the site know that that is your intention if indeed it is. Newcomers have a right to know whether the rules apply to everyone or whether pals of yours from the old days are exempt.
JWR1945's post made reference to the role I have played, and you expressed thanks not only to JWR1945 but to others who he made reference to. So I don't think I was making so big a logical jump.
In any event, you should be thanking me for a lot more than my moderation of this forum, ES. The best days in this site's history were the early days, when there were extensive in-depth and informed discussions of the SWR topic at the FIRE board. I am the one who got the ball rolling on that topic, and I contributed many posts to those discussions. It is those sorts of discussions that get a discussion board site off the ground. I did that for you and you should properly be grateful for the role I played.
"Let me tell you about ataloss. I would welcome him back no questions asked! The only thing ataloss ever did was help me manage this place, contribute 1000's of posts here, get the wool pulled over his eyes by the mentally impaired raddr, and disagree with you!"
The Post Archives do not back you up on this, ES. Ataloss was the leader of the DCMs here. It was not raddr who enticed Ataloss into the DCM camp but Ataloss who enticed raddr. Had you taken action on Ataloss at an appropriate time, all of our troubles would have been averted. You have allowed your personal relationship with him to influence you re your responsibilities as site administrator.
"As I've said before my hand holding days are over"
If you have no intent of administering the posting rules in a reasonable manner, you should not ask newcomers to the site to read the rules. The clear suggestion of having rules posted is that the rules will be administered in a reasonable manner.
People have a right to know what they are getting into when they come to a site. If your intent is for this to be the wild-west shoot-them-up sort of site that JWR1945 quite properly described it to be in an earlier post, then you should let people know that that is the case. You have the right to run the site only for a small group of personal friends if that is what you elect to do. But you have a responsibility to let newcomers to the site know that that is your intention if indeed it is. Newcomers have a right to know whether the rules apply to everyone or whether pals of yours from the old days are exempt.
Here's intercst's take in a thread he started a few minutes ago titled "What's Happened to the FIRE Crowd?
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid= ... t=postdate
Intercst: "What's happened to all these former FIRE stalwarts? Raddr "mentally impaired", wanderer caught sobbing on a French beach with his d**k in his hands, hocus suffering from a variety of ailments from bi-polar disease to multiple personality disorder (MPD) to being just a run of the mill dumb a$$. It's all very disappointing and disheartening."
Is this a leader we all can take pride in or what?
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid= ... t=postdate
Intercst: "What's happened to all these former FIRE stalwarts? Raddr "mentally impaired", wanderer caught sobbing on a French beach with his d**k in his hands, hocus suffering from a variety of ailments from bi-polar disease to multiple personality disorder (MPD) to being just a run of the mill dumb a$$. It's all very disappointing and disheartening."
Is this a leader we all can take pride in or what?
- ElSupremo
- Admin Board Member
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Greetings hocus
I provide this site for all the reasons I have previously outlined. I do not have the time or inclination to be a referee. I gave you your own board here. Enforce any rules you like.
Perhaps you should read over those rules again. These are guidelines. I expect(ha! ) folks to be adult, civil and follow those guidelines. No where in there does it say ES has to wipe noses. I've tried that approach and IHMO it didn't work out to well.If you have no intent of administering the posting rules in a reasonable manner, you should not ask newcomers to the site to read the rules. The clear suggestion of having rules posted is that the rules will be administered in a reasonable manner.
I provide this site for all the reasons I have previously outlined. I do not have the time or inclination to be a referee. I gave you your own board here. Enforce any rules you like.
- ElSupremo
- Admin Board Member
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Ouch! Good old intercst gives as good as he gets eh?Intercst: "What's happened to all these former FIRE stalwarts? Raddr "mentally impaired", wanderer caught sobbing on a French beach with his d**k in his hands, hocus suffering from a variety of ailments from bi-polar disease to multiple personality disorder (MPD) to being just a run of the mill dumb a$$.
intercst is pathetic. He had a choice between glory and the gutter. He chose the gutter. [As originally in a poem and later in a song: the pig got up an slowly walked away.]Here's intercst's take in a thread he started a few minutes ago titled "What's Happened to the FIRE Crowd?
..
Is this a leader we all can take pride in or what?
What a list of accomplishments!
I thank God that we have ElSupremo and these boards. Without them, I would have no place to post my research.
Have fun.
John R.