Oh how it hurts to see no gains

[MediumTex]

This stock rally just looks tired, gold looks cheap, and bond yields look high.  That's JMHO, of course.

I agree, but I thought that 6 months ago too.  I guess it's like Alan Greenspan's warning about irrational exuberance; he was right but the turn didn't happen until 3 years later.

Yes.  I wasn't making a prediction.  I was just saying that it looks tired, but Police Academy looked tired by the end of the first movie in 1984, and they went on to make six more with a seventh coming out in 2014.

[slk23]

Yes.  I wasn't making a prediction.

No, that would be contrary to the principles of the permanent portfolio.  That's why I didn't rebalance months ago when it felt to me like stocks were about to top and gold would bounce.  It's a good thing I heeded Harry's warnings about placing bets and didn't try to outsmart the markets

[Reub]

This stock market has needed a 10% correction for quite some time. It is healthy and could sustain the bull market much longer.

[MediumTex]

This stock market has needed a 10% correction for quite some time. It is healthy and could sustain the bull market much longer.

When you consider the U.S. economy's falling unemployment numbers, favorable demographics, the recent large tax cuts and the relatively low levels of debt throughout the economy, it does seem like a strong market for stocks.

Wait a second, that was the 1980s.

1982-2000 was a secular bull market for stocks.  2000-present has been a secular bear market for stocks.  I don't see anything on the horizon that suggests this long term bear market is finished, notwithstanding this nifty stock rally since 2009.

The chart below just looks like a hot stove to me.

[Ad Orientem]

The current rally reminds me of the great bear market rally of the mid 1930's.

[Coffee]

The current rally reminds me of the great bear market rally of the mid 1930's.

Are you that old?

[Storm]

I love it how the groupthink is so strong that you doubt I am even telling the truth:

Down 6.97% since purchase!!!

You do the math, if you think I'm doubting - purchase in 02/12, then hold until today:



You think I make this shit up?  Groupthink = you don't believe it is possible to be net negative for a few months, much less a year and a half...

[MediumTex]

I love it how the groupthink is so strong that you doubt I am even telling the truth:

Down 6.97% since purchase!!!

You do the math, if you think I'm doubting - purchase in 02/12, then hold until today:



You think I make this shit up?  Groupthink = you don't believe it is possible to be net negative for a few months, much less a year and a half...

I didn't think you were making anything up.  Apparently someone else came up wth different figures and was asking about the discrepancy.

I recognize that the PP has been drifitng sideways for quite a few months now, and depending on when you set up your PP over the last couple of years, you may be in the red.

But all of this should have been understood as part of the risks that a PP investor assumed when he decided to use the strategy.  On its way to its steady returns over the last 40 years, it has had a few bad years and a few large intra-year drawdowns.  No one likes to see his portfolio going sideways or into the red when stock investors are dancing in the streets (though I assume they weren't dancing today).  I'm just reading most of these posts as people who are frustrated, and being frustrated sometimes is part of investing, but IMHO much of the frustration comes from looking in on your portfolio more often than you really need to.

I don't understand what the groupthink is here.  I don't hear anyone saying that up is down or that a zebra and cheetah love story could ever work.  It's just people who are having their PP conviction tested.  Some will stick with it, while others will move on to something they think will work better for them.  The PP is just like any other investment strategy in that regard, except that demoralized PP investors who walk away tend to be dealing with much smaller losses than stock investors when they finally give up during stock market downturns.

I am certainly not saying that I am enjoying this period as much as I enjoy periods when the PP is steadily going up in value, but I don't know what to do other than say that this is just part of it.  However, to say that a 7% decline over a 16 month period invalidates the logic and theory behind the PP is not persuasive to me.  I have had SO much worse investing experiences than a 7% decline in value after a strategy has delivered several years of above-average returns.

How pissed off must those stock investors feel who bought stocks in 2000 and 13 years later they have seen basically ZERO return (and two 40% declines) in an asset that was supposed to provide superior returns if held for a long period?

If there was something better than the PP for people who don't like to lose money but who want a shot at keeping up with inflation I would be using it.  If such a strategy exists, I hope someone will tell me about it.

[greg9840]

After spending many years doing a 70/30 stock/bond blend with a broker, I felt an intense sense of relief when I read Fail-safe Investing and CraigR's PP book a few weeks ago.  I have been looking for something like the PP for so long.  So, I quickly fired my broker (something I have always wanted to do, but felt like I couldn't because I felt so lost and scared in the world of investing) and I put all of my savings in my PP 10 days ago (I decided not to do a VP because my luck with choosing investments has been horrible, with Sirius, Lucent Technologies, and Worldcom being some of my past big picks).  I am down around 3.5% at Thursday's close.  Thank goodness for the 25% cash position!  As much as I am a little shaken up from getting off to a bit of a rough start, I am not tempted to quit the PP because I just don't think there is anything else out there than has a better return/reward ratio, especially in a taxable account.  I feel like Richard Gere in An Officer and a Gentleman: "I've got no place else to go."

[frugal]

I love it how the groupthink is so strong that you doubt I am even telling the truth:

Down 6.97% since purchase!!!

You do the math, if you think I'm doubting - purchase in 02/12, then hold until today:



You think I make this shit up?  Groupthink = you don't believe it is possible to be net negative for a few months, much less a year and a half...

I didn't think you were making anything up.  Apparently someone else came up wth different figures and was asking about the discrepancy.

I recognize that the PP has been drifitng sideways for quite a few months now, and depending on when you set up your PP over the last couple of years, you may be in the red.

But all of this should have been understood as part of the risks that a PP investor assumed when he decided to use the strategy.  On its way to its steady returns over the last 40 years, it has had a few bad years and a few large intra-year drawdowns.  No one likes to see his portfolio going sideways or into the red when stock investors are dancing in the streets (though I assume they weren't dancing today).  I'm just reading most of these posts as people who are frustrated, and being frustrated sometimes is part of investing, but IMHO much of the frustration comes from looking in on your portfolio more often than you really need to.

I don't understand what the groupthink is here.  I don't hear anyone saying that up is down or that a zebra and cheetah love story could ever work.  It's just people who are having their PP conviction tested.  Some will stick with it, while others will move on to something they think will work better for them.  The PP is just like any other investment strategy in that regard, except that demoralized PP investors who walk away tend to be dealing with much smaller losses than stock investors when they finally give up during stock market downturns.

I am certainly not saying that I am enjoying this period as much as I enjoy periods when the PP is steadily going up in value, but I don't know what to do other than say that this is just part of it.  However, to say that a 7% decline over a 16 month period invalidates the logic and theory behind the PP is not persuasive to me.  I have had SO much worse investing experiences than a 7% decline in value after a strategy has delivered several years of above-average returns.

How pissed off must those stock investors feel who bought stocks in 2000 and 13 years later they have seen basically ZERO return (and two 40% declines) in an asset that was supposed to provide superior returns if held for a long period?

If there was something better than the PP for people who don't like to lose money but who want a shot at keeping up with inflation I would be using it.  If such a strategy exists, I hope someone will tell me about it.

+1

GREAT VIEW BOSS!

After spending many years doing a 70/30 stock/bond blend with a broker, I felt an intense sense of relief when I read Fail-safe Investing and CraigR's PP book a few weeks ago.  I have been looking for something like the PP for so long.  So, I quickly fired my broker (something I have always wanted to do, but felt like I couldn't because I felt so lost and scared in the world of investing) and I put all of my savings in my PP 10 days ago (I decided not to do a VP because my luck with choosing investments has been horrible, with Sirius, Lucent Technologies, and Worldcom being some of my past big picks).  I am down around 3.5% at Thursday's close.  Thank goodness for the 25% cash position!  As much as I am a little shaken up from getting off to a bit of a rough start, I am not tempted to quit the PP because I just don't think there is anything else out there than has a better return/reward ratio, especially in a taxable account.  I feel like Richard Gere in An Officer and a Gentleman: "I've got no place else to go."

+1


"I've got no place else to go." 

[MediumTex]

After spending many years doing a 70/30 stock/bond blend with a broker, I felt an intense sense of relief when I read Fail-safe Investing and CraigR's PP book a few weeks ago.  I have been looking for something like the PP for so long.  So, I quickly fired my broker (something I have always wanted to do, but felt like I couldn't because I felt so lost and scared in the world of investing) and I put all of my savings in my PP 10 days ago (I decided not to do a VP because my luck with choosing investments has been horrible, with Sirius, Lucent Technologies, and Worldcom being some of my past big picks).  I am down around 3.5% at Thursday's close.  Thank goodness for the 25% cash position!  As much as I am a little shaken up from getting off to a bit of a rough start, I am not tempted to quit the PP because I just don't think there is anything else out there than has a better return/reward ratio, especially in a taxable account.  I feel like Richard Gere in An Officer and a Gentleman: "I've got no place else to go."

I'm just some guy on the internet, but I would rather start a PP now than when everyone was talking about how bulletproof and safe it was.

Any time people are feeling too smart and self-satisfied in the investment world, it often means something bad is around the corner.  OTOH, when everyone feels discouraged and frustrated that's often a good time to buy certain assets.

I don't have a clue what the future holds, but I applaud your willingness to jump into a strategy when everyone else is beginning to question it.

Can you provide a few thoughts on what kind of impression Fail Safe Investing left on you compared to last year's PP book?  They're very different books, and I think the idea was for them to complement one another without too much overlap.  Was that your impression?  Did you have any PP questions that you didn't think either book addressed to your satisfaction?

I assume you checked out the epic PP thread over on the Bogleheads forum.  That's also a really good resource.

[WhiteDesert]

I assume you checked out the epic PP thread over on the Bogleheads forum.  That's also a really good resource.

I read that whole damn thread (3000+ posts)--much of it several times. And some of the follow-on discussions. It's actually what led me to establish a 4X25 PP in my Roth. I found the analysis and discussion reasoned and ultimately compelling.

[HB Reader]

"When the going gets tough, the intelligent investor takes a vacation."

That was HB's advice in his newsletter in the early 1980s. 

I hate to sound glib, but maybe it's time to relax and take an afternoon at the beach. 

[dragoncar]

I don't hear anyone saying that up is down or that a zebra and cheetah love story could ever work.

Brilliant

[moda0306]

I love it how the groupthink is so strong that you doubt I am even telling the truth:

Down 6.97% since purchase!!!

You do the math, if you think I'm doubting - purchase in 02/12, then hold until today:

Storm:

I know this is small consolation, and I'm not trying to be a prick, but...

The -6.97% number in your screenshot is based on changes in FUSVX, IAU, and TLT only.  That is, it excludes cash.  If I assume that your cash holdings have not changed in value, your entire portfolio has gone from $66,148.07 to $62,705.92, or a loss of 5.20%.

I also don't think it is groupthink to point out a discrepancy between your experience and what they calculate based on info you've provided.  If anything, I think it is interesting (and cautionary) about how returns can be sensitive to the details of the starting date(s).  I've explored this sensitivity in a couple of back testing studies.

Not to pile on one more thing, but are we also forgetting about interest/dividends?

Add another 1.5% about of income to the PP over that same period, if those numbers don't include dividends.


And I think a lot of people here, including me, in a very low inflation environment after 2 consecutive double-digit years in a row and two high-single-digit years surrounding those, that the PP was due for a 1981-light.

But I guess I'm not a pure PP practitioner as I think 25% gold is too much.  But I love the fundamentals of it.  Unmatched, IMO, and the PP Principals will always drive how I look at my portfolio and financial decisions.

[doodle]

If you think 25% gold is too much...

1. Do you not follow the traditional PP?

2. What do you think the right amount would be?

[Tyler]

Because of the diversification your reaction to the PP is a bit of a personality test.  Take yesterday -- some people focused on gold tanking and naturally freaked out.  I watched cash stay put in a horrible market for every other asset and felt pretty satisfied. 

Some of that may also be my engineering training.  I remember an experienced mentor telling me years ago to be wary of test successes because they could just be the result of dumb luck.  It's only when you stress the system that you actually learn anything.  All portfolios are undergoing a stress test right now, and for a bunch of volatile assets the PP is still doing quite well under the circumstances.  I've seen my investment decisions blow up in the past, so I know a real implosion when I see one. 

[moda0306]

If you think 25% gold is too much...

1. Do you not follow the traditional PP?

2. What do you think the right amount would be?

I follow pretty close to a traditional PP, with the exception that I try to keep gold to more like 10% of my portfolio, and cash to little-more than my emergency fund (6 months income).

This doesn't skew my cash too much btw .

I tend to see gold as a leveraged asset, not just a simple store of value.  So I think it would absolutely explode in real terms if there was a currency collapse of the USD.  So I really see it more as insurance.  I don't need 25% of my assets in it to get the desired effect.. plus I have a lot of home on my balance sheet so I see an inflation hedge as less vital to me than it would be to a retiree or a renter.

[Pointedstick]

If you think 25% gold is too much...

1. Do you not follow the traditional PP?

2. What do you think the right amount would be?

Personally I think that because gold is more volatile than stocks and bonds, it ought to be either held in a smaller amount or paired with more volatile versions of the other assets. Reducing the amount of gold alone seems so… inelegant, so option #2 seems better to me. Now I haven't done this yet, but consider a PP-like portfolio of the following:
20% gold
20% small-cap value index
20% zero-coupon bonds
40% short-term treasuries

In theory, the increased volatility of the stock and bond portion should help to balance out gold's volatility, while the increased amount of cash should offset the more-volatile rest of the portfolio.

That said, I still have a 4x25 HBPP and am perfectly content with it.

[Storm]

I love it how the groupthink is so strong that you doubt I am even telling the truth:

Down 6.97% since purchase!!!

You do the math, if you think I'm doubting - purchase in 02/12, then hold until today:

Storm:

I know this is small consolation, and I'm not trying to be a prick, but...

The -6.97% number in your screenshot is based on changes in FUSVX, IAU, and TLT only.  That is, it excludes cash.  If I assume that your cash holdings have not changed in value, your entire portfolio has gone from $66,148.07 to $62,705.92, or a loss of 5.20%.

I also don't think it is groupthink to point out a discrepancy between your experience and what they calculate based on info you've provided.  If anything, I think it is interesting (and cautionary) about how returns can be sensitive to the details of the starting date(s).  I've explored this sensitivity in a couple of back testing studies.

Very good point - I wasn't calculating the offset from the cash portion.  At least it's hard (not impossible, but hard) to take a loss in cash... 

[greg9840]

After spending many years doing a 70/30 stock/bond blend with a broker, I felt an intense sense of relief when I read Fail-safe Investing and CraigR's PP book a few weeks ago.  I have been looking for something like the PP for so long.  So, I quickly fired my broker (something I have always wanted to do, but felt like I couldn't because I felt so lost and scared in the world of investing) and I put all of my savings in my PP 10 days ago (I decided not to do a VP because my luck with choosing investments has been horrible, with Sirius, Lucent Technologies, and Worldcom being some of my past big picks).  I am down around 3.5% at Thursday's close.  Thank goodness for the 25% cash position!  As much as I am a little shaken up from getting off to a bit of a rough start, I am not tempted to quit the PP because I just don't think there is anything else out there than has a better return/reward ratio, especially in a taxable account.  I feel like Richard Gere in An Officer and a Gentleman: "I've got no place else to go."

I'm just some guy on the internet, but I would rather start a PP now than when everyone was talking about how bulletproof and safe it was.

Any time people are feeling too smart and self-satisfied in the investment world, it often means something bad is around the corner.  OTOH, when everyone feels discouraged and frustrated that's often a good time to buy certain assets.

I don't have a clue what the future holds, but I applaud your willingness to jump into a strategy when everyone else is beginning to question it.

Can you provide a few thoughts on what kind of impression Fail Safe Investing left on you compared to last year's PP book?  They're very different books, and I think the idea was for them to complement one another without too much overlap.  Was that your impression?  Did you have any PP questions that you didn't think either book addressed to your satisfaction?

I assume you checked out the epic PP thread over on the Bogleheads forum.  That's also a really good resource.

The Fail-Safe Investing book and CraigR's PP book are very similar, but Craig's book goes into far greater detail.  If someone was going to read just one book, I would recommend Craig's book over Browne's simply because Craig's book pretty much covered everything in Browne's book, plus it has a lot more.  It also has important information on holding assets overseas, which was relatively easy to do when Browne was alive, and now has become subject to a load of regulations.  It also has more useful information related to the ETFs and mutual funds that weren't around when Browne's book was written. 

I do have a question that I can't seem to find the answer to anywhere.  Browne clearly states in his book that you should only check your account once per year, in regards to rebalancing.  But I do not recall Craig's book saying that.  Browne said you only need to check your accounts once per year and if everything is inside the 15/35 bands, don't consider rebalancing again for another 12 months.  My PP is only 11 days old.  If, for example, gold goes down 50% over the next 6 months (I sure hope not), pushing itself below 15% of my portfolio, should I rebalance immediately at the 15% band, or should I only rebalance on the one year anniversary of my portfolio?  Also, I started my PP in the middle of the year.  If I am going to rebalance once per year, doesn't it makes sense for me to rebalance at the very beginning of each year so that I don't have to pay out the taxes triggered by rebalancing until April of the following year?  I think it makes sense to try to put as much space as possible between the day you rebalance and the day you pay taxes.

[MediumTex]

The Fail-Safe Investing book and CraigR's PP book are very similar, but Craig's book goes into far greater detail.  If someone was going to read just one book, I would recommend Craig's book over Browne's simply because Craig's book pretty much covered everything in Browne's book, plus it has a lot more.  It also has important information on holding assets overseas, which was relatively easy to do when Browne was alive, and now has become subject to a load of regulations.  It also has more useful information related to the ETFs and mutual funds that weren't around when Browne's book was written. 

I do have a question that I can't seem to find the answer to anywhere.  Browne clearly states in his book that you should only check your account once per year, in regards to rebalancing.  But I do not recall Craig's book saying that.  Browne said you only need to check your accounts once per year and if everything is inside the 15/35 bands, don't consider rebalancing again for another 12 months.  My PP is only 11 days old.  If, for example, gold goes down 50% over the next 6 months (I sure hope not), pushing itself below 15% of my portfolio, should I rebalance immediately at the 15% band, or should I only rebalance on the one year anniversary of my portfolio?  Also, I started my PP in the middle of the year.  If I am going to rebalance once per year, doesn't it makes sense for me to rebalance at the very beginning of each year so that I don't have to pay out the taxes triggered by rebalancing until April of the following year?  I think it makes sense to try to put as much space as possible between the day you rebalance and the day you pay taxes.

Browne basically said that if anything really bad happens in the investment markets you will find out about it because everyone will be talking about it.  In other words, a person who checked his portfolio only once per year would still almost certainly become aware if some kind of event occurred that might make him want to look in on his portfolio and perhaps rebalance it.

I think that the reason last year's PP book may not have highlighted the concept as much as Browne did of not looking at your portfolio but once per year was because in the age of the internet that's probably not realistic for most investors.  As I recall, the book does touch on the concept of avoiding the temptation to tinker with the portfolio, which (to me) includes the implicit suggestion that you not look at it too often (since humans are more likely to tinker with things that they are watching closely, as opposed to something they rarely think about).

You will find that the first few months of PP investing are a little up and down emotionally because you want to make sure that the reality of the strategy matches what you read about it.  I'm not talking so much about the performance of the portfolio itself, but rather the emotional and psychological experience you have after implementing it.  It's a new framework for thinking about your investments and requires rewiring your brain a bit to resist all sorts of temptations that the investment world encourages you to act on, primarily frequent transactions in your accounts and chasing returns in general.

In the unlikely event that you faced a rebalancing event shortly after starting your PP, if it were me I would probably just rebalance.  Historically, you are going to see a rebalancing event every two years or so, and if you saw one shortly after starting yours it would probably be quite a while before you saw another one (depending on how much new money you are adding to it, of course).

As far as whether you should rebalance annually or when you hit a 15/35 rebalancing band, I don't think it really matters that much.  Do whatever makes more sense to you.  It won't affect your returns that much either way.  Some people like the certainty of rebalancing once per year, while others prefer the longer rebalancing intervals that you normally get with the 15/35 (or 20/30) approach.

Try not to get hung up on too many of the finer points of the PP once you have implemented it.  It isn't necessary to do it perfectly.  Just do the best you can and then try to forget about it.  Learning patience was probably the hardest part for me.  Gradually, though, I have gone from the need to look in on it daily to the point I'm at now where I only look at hypothetical PP returns on a regular basis, but my actual accounts only get reviewed every few months.  I never feel any pain when the portfolio declines in value and I don't feel any thrill when it goes up.  I just don't have much emotional involvement of any kind with my investments, and this is something I always hoped I would be able to achieve.  It always struck me as a foolish thing to spend a lot of time and energy in life monitoring an angst-triggering abstraction like one's investments, even though I used to do it constantly myself.  I think that a lot of investors have never had any investing experiences that weren't nerve rattling, so the peace of mind I'm talking about for many of them is simply outside their range of past experience as an investor.

A PP investor should think of himself as a gardener whose garden consists of a forest of oak trees.  There really isn't much to do, and if he started trying to do things to "help the trees grow better" he would probably be more likely to screw up the forest than improve it.

Best of luck with your PP.  I've enjoyed this strategy very much and it has been quite liberating to be able to focus on writing posts for this forum without being distracted by what's going on in the markets.

[Khisanth]

I recently also traded in some GLD for some American Eagle coins. Boy, I have to say that made a huge difference. I still keep track of gold value of GLD and combine it with the coins, but now I feel myself itching to buy more COINS, rather than having a feeling of oh shit should I sell GLD?

Holding those coins in my hand definitely made a big difference in my perspective. It's something tangible, and going back to the coin dealer to sell them takes a lot more effort. Electronic bits of numbers on the computer screen make it far too easy to execute emotional trades.

But, I realize for an IRA that might not be feasible. I dumped my IRA into PRPFX since they do assert holding actual bullion.

[craigr]

I do have a question that I can't seem to find the answer to anywhere.  Browne clearly states in his book that you should only check your account once per year, in regards to rebalancing.  But I do not recall Craig's book saying that.  Browne said you only need to check your accounts once per year and if everything is inside the 15/35 bands, don't consider rebalancing again for another 12 months.  My PP is only 11 days old.  If, for example, gold goes down 50% over the next 6 months (I sure hope not), pushing itself below 15% of my portfolio, should I rebalance immediately at the 15% band, or should I only rebalance on the one year anniversary of my portfolio?  Also, I started my PP in the middle of the year.  If I am going to rebalance once per year, doesn't it makes sense for me to rebalance at the very beginning of each year so that I don't have to pay out the taxes triggered by rebalancing until April of the following year?  I think it makes sense to try to put as much space as possible between the day you rebalance and the day you pay taxes.

A few points:

1) Tex hit the major issue which is if you hear about something really big you probably are going to want to look at things. This is really true in the age of the Internet. But if you did it once a year it probably would still be fine. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I suspect if you skipped paying attention to the markets in 2008's crash and then the recovery in 2009 you'd probably find almost no impact to the portfolio. Stocks crashed. Bonds went up. Bonds crashed. Stocks went up. If you ignored it all you probably were still fine even with no rebalancing.

2) My experience has continually shown to me that the more I tinker with my investments, the less money I make. Highly scientific I know, but it's just what I've found personally. I make more money leaving things alone, staying diversified, and ignoring the markets.

3) Tex/Mike was also an author on the book.

[frugal]

I do have a question that I can't seem to find the answer to anywhere.  Browne clearly states in his book that you should only check your account once per year, in regards to rebalancing.  But I do not recall Craig's book saying that.  Browne said you only need to check your accounts once per year and if everything is inside the 15/35 bands, don't consider rebalancing again for another 12 months.  My PP is only 11 days old.  If, for example, gold goes down 50% over the next 6 months (I sure hope not), pushing itself below 15% of my portfolio, should I rebalance immediately at the 15% band, or should I only rebalance on the one year anniversary of my portfolio?  Also, I started my PP in the middle of the year.  If I am going to rebalance once per year, doesn't it makes sense for me to rebalance at the very beginning of each year so that I don't have to pay out the taxes triggered by rebalancing until April of the following year?  I think it makes sense to try to put as much space as possible between the day you rebalance and the day you pay taxes.

A few points:

1) Tex hit the major issue which is if you hear about something really big you probably are going to want to look at things. This is really true in the age of the Internet. But if you did it once a year it probably would still be fine. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I suspect if you skipped paying attention to the markets in 2008's crash and then the recovery in 2009 you'd probably find almost no impact to the portfolio. Stocks crashed. Bonds went up. Bonds crashed. Stocks went up. If you ignored it all you probably were still fine even with no rebalancing.

2) My experience has continually shown to me that the more I tinker with my investments, the less money I make. Highly scientific I know, but it's just what I've found personally. I make more money leaving things alone, staying diversified, and ignoring the markets.

3) Tex/Mike was also an author on the book.

ehehe yes I think he doesn't know


Craig and MT, do you feel that EU-PP is also still valid?



tks