Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
Moderator: Global Moderator
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4456
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
well i show never has 50/50 failed out to 30 years and a 96% success rate out to 35 years . 50% s&p 500 and 50% intermediate gov't bonds . maybe you left out dividends
according to michael kitces , Whether the retiree started at the beginning of the Great Depression, entering into the stagflationary recession of the late 1960s and 1970s, or the credit crisis and panic of 1907 and the slow economic growth that followed, an initial withdrawal rate below 4.5% was both necessary and sufficient for the portfolio to survive for 30 years.
in fact here is the exact data
suppose you were so unlucky to retire in one of those worst time framess ,what would your 30 year results look like :
1907 stocks returned 7.77% -- bonds 4.250-- rebalanced portfolio 7.02- - inflation 1.64--
1929 stocks 8.19% - - bonds 1.74%-- rebalanced portfolio 6.28-- inflation 1.69--
1937 stocks 10.12 - - bonds 2.13 - rebalanced portfolio -- 7.24 inflation-- 2.82
1966 stocks 10.23 - -bonds 7.85 -- rebalanced portfolio 9.56- - inflation 5.38
but the portfolio outcomes are determined in the first 15 years .
so here are the 15 year results
1907--- stocks minus 1.47%---- bonds minus .39%-- rebalanced minus .70% ---inflation 1.64%
1929---stocks 1.07%---bonds 1.79%---rebalanced 2.29%--inflation 1.69%
1937---stocks -- 3.45%---bonds minus 3.07%-- rebalanced 1.23%--inflation 2.82%
1966-stocks minus .13%--bonds 1.08%--rebalanced .64%-- inflation 5.38%
according to michael kitces , Whether the retiree started at the beginning of the Great Depression, entering into the stagflationary recession of the late 1960s and 1970s, or the credit crisis and panic of 1907 and the slow economic growth that followed, an initial withdrawal rate below 4.5% was both necessary and sufficient for the portfolio to survive for 30 years.
in fact here is the exact data
suppose you were so unlucky to retire in one of those worst time framess ,what would your 30 year results look like :
1907 stocks returned 7.77% -- bonds 4.250-- rebalanced portfolio 7.02- - inflation 1.64--
1929 stocks 8.19% - - bonds 1.74%-- rebalanced portfolio 6.28-- inflation 1.69--
1937 stocks 10.12 - - bonds 2.13 - rebalanced portfolio -- 7.24 inflation-- 2.82
1966 stocks 10.23 - -bonds 7.85 -- rebalanced portfolio 9.56- - inflation 5.38
but the portfolio outcomes are determined in the first 15 years .
so here are the 15 year results
1907--- stocks minus 1.47%---- bonds minus .39%-- rebalanced minus .70% ---inflation 1.64%
1929---stocks 1.07%---bonds 1.79%---rebalanced 2.29%--inflation 1.69%
1937---stocks -- 3.45%---bonds minus 3.07%-- rebalanced 1.23%--inflation 2.82%
1966-stocks minus .13%--bonds 1.08%--rebalanced .64%-- inflation 5.38%
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
Yield chasing behavior? I'm sure we can handle another 50% drop in equities after the last two. Please don't tell me you believe that Kool Aid about "printing money" flowing into the stock market.dutchtraffic wrote: The reason WHY they tripled after the drop should scare you the most..
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4456
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
well i am only in the high 40's as far as my allocation at the moment so we are looking at a drop a lot less than that . even less if bonds reflect a flight to safety since more than 1/2 are bonds . not a problem at all .
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
Sure seems to me like you just proved that chart? How can you support a 4% SWR with inflation at 5.38% and portfolio only generating .64%? No wonder it goes to zero.mathjak107 wrote: 1907--- stocks minus 1.47%---- bonds minus .39%-- rebalanced minus .70% ---inflation 1.64%
1929---stocks 1.07%---bonds 1.79%---rebalanced 2.29%--inflation 1.69%
1937---stocks -- 3.45%---bonds minus 3.07%-- rebalanced 1.23%--inflation 2.82%
1966-stocks minus .13%--bonds 1.08%--rebalanced .64%-- inflation 5.38%
I suspect whatever amount of gold makes that 1965+ period keep the 4% SWR working is what a portfolio should have as minimum. Do you disagree?
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4456
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
wrong .
answer , that is only the first 15 years . the 30 year time frame was not bad at all . if the first 15 years were not so bad the safe withdrawal rate would have been higher .
here is the full 30 years
1966 stocks 10.23 - -bonds 7.85 -- rebalanced portfolio 9.56- - inflation 5.38
spin again , ha ha ha , did you miss the part those numbers were only the first 15 years not 30 .
answer , that is only the first 15 years . the 30 year time frame was not bad at all . if the first 15 years were not so bad the safe withdrawal rate would have been higher .
here is the full 30 years
1966 stocks 10.23 - -bonds 7.85 -- rebalanced portfolio 9.56- - inflation 5.38
spin again , ha ha ha , did you miss the part those numbers were only the first 15 years not 30 .
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
I'll spin again too: the 50/50 portfolio WENT TO ZERO IN 22 YEARS @ 4% SWR starting in 1965. The disastrous first 15-years seems to prove why this happened. Do you disagree?mathjak107 wrote: spin again , ha ha ha
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
LOL! After 15 years of withdrawing 4%, the balance is all gone! There's nothing to grow! The 30 year-results are irrelevant because after 15, you have nothing to get you through the next 15!mathjak107 wrote: answer , that is only the first 15 years . the 30 year time frame was not bad at all . if the first 15 years were not so bad the safe withdrawal rate would have been higher .
here is the full 30 years
1966 stocks 10.23 - -bonds 7.85 -- rebalanced portfolio 9.56- - inflation 5.38
spin again , ha ha ha , did you miss the part those numbers were only the first 15 years not 30 .
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4456
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
not at all , back to the drawing board for you . it depends on how the sequences came in . averages don't count when spending down .
in fact the first 10 years all you lost in real return was about 3.50% annualized not counting any bond interest
in fact the first 10 years all you lost in real return was about 3.50% annualized not counting any bond interest
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
Yes, exactly. If you start in 1966, the sequence-of-returns for that portfolio are very bad such that after 15 years of withdrawing 4%, you have no money left, so the 30-year return of that portfolio starting in 1966 is irrelevant because that portfolio would cease to exist by 1981. You wouldn't have any money left to grow dramatically for the next 15 years.mathjak107 wrote: not at all , back to the drawing board for you . it depends on how the sequences came in . averages don't count when spending down .
Do I have this wrong?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
You seem to be denying that the 1965 sequence goes to ZERO? If that chart is wrong, why?mathjak107 wrote: not at all , back to the drawing board for you . it depends on how the sequences came in . averages don't count when spending down .
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4456
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
yes you are wrong . equities the first 10 years lost only an average of 3.41% real return average per year from 1965 to 1975 and that is not even counting the interest yet from 1/2 the portfolio . once interest is figured it is even less than that .
1965 to 1980 real returns were positive .68 % per year on the s&p 500 plus interest .
you can do it right here . it is a fact the 4% safe withdrawal rate survived 1965/1966 . that is why it is the basis for a bench mark .
starting in year 16 to year 30 real returns were more than 9% after inflation , almost 155 before inflation . .
http://dqydj.net/sp-500-return-calculator/
1965 to 1980 real returns were positive .68 % per year on the s&p 500 plus interest .
you can do it right here . it is a fact the 4% safe withdrawal rate survived 1965/1966 . that is why it is the basis for a bench mark .
starting in year 16 to year 30 real returns were more than 9% after inflation , almost 155 before inflation . .
http://dqydj.net/sp-500-return-calculator/
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4456
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
yearly returns mean near nothing by themselves when spending down . you need to go by sequence of returns and inflation each year while deducting the spending .
believe me the 50/50 did not FAIL. you can see that just by the fact there was less than a 3-1/2% negative real return the first 15 years not including interest in that negative real return , followed by 15 years of almost 15% average returns nominal and 10% returns adjusted by inflation , plus some of the highest interest rates not included yet .
believe me the 50/50 did not FAIL. you can see that just by the fact there was less than a 3-1/2% negative real return the first 15 years not including interest in that negative real return , followed by 15 years of almost 15% average returns nominal and 10% returns adjusted by inflation , plus some of the highest interest rates not included yet .
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
Okay, I double checked in my own spreadsheet and I get .44% real CAGR for 50/50 from 1965 until the end of 2014. At no time did it ever reach zero. That chart from Go Curry that you linked to is obviously wrong.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4456
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
see , i am correct . kiss the ring but don't get it wet . ha ha ha
there are things that just don't make logical sense and running out of money the first 15 years was one of them . that was the whole point of basing the 4% withdrawal rate on 1965/1966 .
it was the most they could extract and pass .
i don't know much but i do know quite a bit about what safe withdrawal rates represent and the research leading up to them . .
but that is what these forums are for , not to argue but to learn from each other . .
there are things that just don't make logical sense and running out of money the first 15 years was one of them . that was the whole point of basing the 4% withdrawal rate on 1965/1966 .
it was the most they could extract and pass .
i don't know much but i do know quite a bit about what safe withdrawal rates represent and the research leading up to them . .
but that is what these forums are for , not to argue but to learn from each other . .
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
BTW, the Browne PP survives as well, generating .43% real CAGR until 2014, assuming you held junk silver coins from 1965 to 1967 then switched to gold in 1968. 0% is at a 4.45% SWR.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4456
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
i would never accept that as fact or the way things would actually have played out with gold .
the answer is we just do not know what the pp would have done . anything else is a speculative guess at finding an answer to something that has no answer .
the answer is we just do not know what the pp would have done . anything else is a speculative guess at finding an answer to something that has no answer .
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
I could extend holding the junk silver coins until 1975 when gold was domestically legal again, but the results are virtually still the same at .41% CAGR.mathjak107 wrote: i would never accept that as fact or the way things would actually have played out with gold .
the answer is we just do not know what the pp would have done . anything else is a speculative guess at finding an nswer to something that has no answer .
No one stopped Americans from buying and storing their gold overseas in London or Switzerland. Most of the pre-1933 gold coins were being held overseas, in fact. It wasn't Big Brotherish like it was today with FATCA and the surveillance state.
I don't think its any more speculative than saying that the future will not surpass history in terms of magnitude and basing a portfolio around it. If anything, what we having coming is going to surpass all historical precedent.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4456
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
you can bend , twist and mold any situation to try to get a point to work , but considering the pp concept didn't go public until years later it still was not a concept used until the 1980's ..
the pp wasn't just an investment it was a total radical concept unlike just buying stocks and bonds . without the book there was no pp .
so we can't use the same benchmarks as to those worst of times that are what a safe withdrawal rate is founded on .
sure , you can compute a cagr for the pp at any point in time or even a withdrawal rate that worked but that is all we can really know in comparison . we can't do an apple to apple comparison .
it is lik me trying to simulate reits at a time hey didn't exist so i use my co-op as a proxy .
the pp wasn't just an investment it was a total radical concept unlike just buying stocks and bonds . without the book there was no pp .
so we can't use the same benchmarks as to those worst of times that are what a safe withdrawal rate is founded on .
sure , you can compute a cagr for the pp at any point in time or even a withdrawal rate that worked but that is all we can really know in comparison . we can't do an apple to apple comparison .
it is lik me trying to simulate reits at a time hey didn't exist so i use my co-op as a proxy .
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 242
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 7:28 am
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
What on earth are you talking about, a radical concept? It's just buying stocks, bonds, and some gold.mathjak107 wrote: you can bend , twist and mold any situation to try to get a point to work , but considering the pp concept didn't go public until years later it still was not a concept used until the 1980's ..
the pp wasn't just an investment it was a total radical concept unlike just buying stocks and bonds . without the book there was no pp .
so we can't use the same benchmarks as to those worst of times that are what a safe withdrawal rate is founded on .
sure , you can compute a cagr for the pp at any point in time or even a withdrawal rate that worked but that is all we can really know in comparison . we can't do an apple to apple comparison .
What's so radical about that?
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
Says who? Assets move together as a broad group. You don't think silver being taken out of the currency post-1965 is equivalent to gold post-1968 or post 1975 and worthy as a stopgap substitute? Whats the big deal about needed perfect likeness for 3-10 years? History isn't going to repeat in the future exactly either that will justify any of these SWR portfolios. The past does not repeat.mathjak107 wrote: you can bend , twist and mold any situation to try to get a point to work , but considering the pp concept didn't go public until years later it still was not a concept used .
the pp wasn't just an investment it was a total radical concept unlike buying stocks and bonds .
except we can't use the same benchmarks as to those worst of times that are what a safe withdrawal rate is founded on .
Last edited by MachineGhost on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4456
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
the pp has a concept behind it. do you really think without the pp being published and promoted folks were just hap hazardly buying stocks , gold and bonds in all the exact same allocations ? not on your life and not without someone laying out why . really , you think that is what would have happened ? well folks then would have publicized they were doing it wouldn't they or you would have already seen it in practice on a wide scale . .
sorry there mister ghost . gold is not a proxy for silver .
sorry there mister ghost . gold is not a proxy for silver .
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
That's different because your co-op is an entirely different asset class than what a REIT index measures. Gold and silver are monetary twins.mathjak107 wrote: it is lik me trying to simulate reits at a time hey didn't exist so i use my co-op as a proxy .
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- mathjak107
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4456
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:54 am
- Location: bayside queens ny
- Contact:
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
MachineGhost wrote:That's different because your co-op is an entirely different asset class than what a REIT index measures. Gold and silver are monetary twins.mathjak107 wrote: it is lik me trying to simulate reits at a time hey didn't exist so i use my co-op as a proxy .
no , by the same token they are both real estate just as gold and silver are precious metals .
and oil and coffee are both commodity's .
we do not know if if gold and silver would have been treated the same back then ,look at 2008 when silver plunged and gold was up .
to be fair you can't do a comparison based on what you think would have happened .
Last edited by mathjak107 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
No, they aren't; HB destroyed that myth years ago. In terms of amounts used, silver is mostly an industrial metal, and gold is almost entirely a monetary metal. They have about a 50% correlation, as I recall, or even less than that.MachineGhost wrote:That's different because your co-op is an entirely different asset class than what a REIT index measures. Gold and silver are monetary twins.mathjak107 wrote: it is lik me trying to simulate reits at a time hey didn't exist so i use my co-op as a proxy .
On a slightly different note, here's a great example of why you shouldn't listen to market prognosticators. Every single prediction from 2010 was way off:
http://news.silverseek.com/SilverSeek/1278958658.php
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Why the PP is better in accumulation than you think
Not as 25%x4 of course, but if you think people didn't own any silver or gold back then... Maybe you didn't see this book released in 1970... How You Can Profit From The Coming Devaluation. Or the hoarding of pre-1965 junk silver once it was taken out coins in 1965. Inflation was already an issue in the early 60's. It didn't take until the late 70's for people to get a clue, just the dumbest.mathjak107 wrote: the pp has a concept behind it. do you really think without the pp folks were just hap hazardly buying stocks , gold and bonds in all the exact same allocations ? not on your life and not without someone laying out why .
I'm comfortable with using silver as a proxy for gold for just 3 years. In fact, it returned nothing for 2 of those years, so all the more conservative. I could also halve the third year return to make it even more conservative. Point stands that the Browne PP would have theoretically survived the worst case 1965+ era just as the 50/50 did.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!