New PPer needs guidance.
Moderator: Global Moderator
- Mark Leavy
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
- Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Good question Reub (and Budd).
I think you should always question the fundamentals of any system. The problem is in not having a decent metric to evaluate whether the fundamentals are working or not. You can't look at the day to day swings. That is just noise and will drive you crazy. But without something else to look at, you can never be sure that it is all working.
The metric that I have finally settled on is a linear fit of the inflation adjusted returns. Here's the vanilla HBPP over the last 10 years:
[img width=800]http://i57.tinypic.com/2z8ng2w.png[/img]
The linear fit of the inflation adjusted growth rate is 8.45%.
The average (RMS) deviation from that best fit line is 4.88%
The largest deviation from the line (not MaxDD) is 13.5%
Our current deviation from that best fit linear line is 8.58%
So... yes we are down a little bit from average over the last 10 years.
We are still aways a bit from even our worst 10 year slump.
Nothing in this picture makes me think the model is broken.
Think of this post as just an example. You need some metric that can give you an accurate picture of the model performing to plan. Pick whatever you want - but a day/week up/down will not give you the information you are looking for.
Hope this helps.
All the best,
Mark
I think you should always question the fundamentals of any system. The problem is in not having a decent metric to evaluate whether the fundamentals are working or not. You can't look at the day to day swings. That is just noise and will drive you crazy. But without something else to look at, you can never be sure that it is all working.
The metric that I have finally settled on is a linear fit of the inflation adjusted returns. Here's the vanilla HBPP over the last 10 years:
[img width=800]http://i57.tinypic.com/2z8ng2w.png[/img]
The linear fit of the inflation adjusted growth rate is 8.45%.
The average (RMS) deviation from that best fit line is 4.88%
The largest deviation from the line (not MaxDD) is 13.5%
Our current deviation from that best fit linear line is 8.58%
So... yes we are down a little bit from average over the last 10 years.
We are still aways a bit from even our worst 10 year slump.
Nothing in this picture makes me think the model is broken.
Think of this post as just an example. You need some metric that can give you an accurate picture of the model performing to plan. Pick whatever you want - but a day/week up/down will not give you the information you are looking for.
Hope this helps.
All the best,
Mark
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Mark,Mark Leavy wrote: The metric that I have finally settled on is a linear fit of the inflation adjusted returns. Here's the vanilla HBPP over the last 10 years:
[img width=800]http://i57.tinypic.com/2z8ng2w.png[/img]
The linear fit of the inflation adjusted growth rate is 8.45%.
The average (RMS) deviation from that best fit line is 4.88%
The largest deviation from the line (not MaxDD) is 13.5%
Our current deviation from that best fit linear line is 8.58%
Thanks for sharing that. A couple of questions...
By "inflation adjusted growth rate" you mean, real rate of return, correct? If so, shouldn't that number be something around 4.5% instead of 8.45%?
Your post is similar to Ryan's Melvey's "What's My Benchmark" article here:
http://www.stableinvesting.com/2011/04/ ... hmark.html
Also, I really think we need a quick performance link on the home page of this forum so that we all know what we are talking about when we get into the debate about whether or not the PP's current performance is tracking its historical performance. I get frustrated when I read most 'tracking error' posts because the PP is not supposed to track some other index like the S&P 500 or a 60/40 Bogleheads setup. We should only be comparing it to itself. Only then can we have reasonable discussions about whether or not it is lagging, broken, outperforming, regressing to the mean, etc.
-
- Associate Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:29 am
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Matthew,
When to sell separates the winners from the losers. I buy penny stocks and have had some success with them (this is the variable part of my portfolio). My goal is for every penny stock to double (of course not all of them do). This is my selling plan. When the stock doubles I will sell half of my holdings. Then when the stock declines 25% from its highest point I sell the remainder of my shares. These are the kind of stocks you date, not marry.
A common refrain I hear is "What if it goes back up after you sell?" Maybe 1 out of 10 might, but most of them will fall further but you have your cash in your hands.
If you had sold on a 25% decline from the stock's high, you would have pocketed some nice profits. It is sickening to watch a stock with nice gains turn red in negative territory. The plan I use above helps to prevent this.
When to sell separates the winners from the losers. I buy penny stocks and have had some success with them (this is the variable part of my portfolio). My goal is for every penny stock to double (of course not all of them do). This is my selling plan. When the stock doubles I will sell half of my holdings. Then when the stock declines 25% from its highest point I sell the remainder of my shares. These are the kind of stocks you date, not marry.
A common refrain I hear is "What if it goes back up after you sell?" Maybe 1 out of 10 might, but most of them will fall further but you have your cash in your hands.
If you had sold on a 25% decline from the stock's high, you would have pocketed some nice profits. It is sickening to watch a stock with nice gains turn red in negative territory. The plan I use above helps to prevent this.
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
What about when 2 assets are falling and the other is overvalued?MediumTex wrote:And I would point Reub back to some of the PP basics, like if one asset is falling, another asset MUST be rising, and if you can somehow find proxies for assets associated with all conceivable economic environments, then you will always have at least one winner in your portfolio, and that's enough to protect you.Pointedstick wrote:What long-term bull market in gold?Reub wrote: Maybe budd has a point. Is the PP positively biased because of the long term bull markets in gold and treasuries?
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Thank you, Mark! Your posts are always polite and insightful. But do you have a 10 year chart available for the next 10 years?Mark Leavy wrote: Good question Reub (and Budd).
I think you should always question the fundamentals of any system. The problem is in not having a decent metric to evaluate whether the fundamentals are working or not. You can't look at the day to day swings. That is just noise and will drive you crazy. But without something else to look at, you can never be sure that it is all working.
The metric that I have finally settled on is a linear fit of the inflation adjusted returns. Here's the vanilla HBPP over the last 10 years:
[img width=800]http://i57.tinypic.com/2z8ng2w.png[/img]
The linear fit of the inflation adjusted growth rate is 8.45%.
The average (RMS) deviation from that best fit line is 4.88%
The largest deviation from the line (not MaxDD) is 13.5%
Our current deviation from that best fit linear line is 8.58%
So... yes we are down a little bit from average over the last 10 years.
We are still aways a bit from even our worst 10 year slump.
Nothing in this picture makes me think the model is broken.
Think of this post as just an example. You need some metric that can give you an accurate picture of the model performing to plan. Pick whatever you want - but a day/week up/down will not give you the information you are looking for.
Hope this helps.
All the best,
Mark
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Could you run it again but this time with gold at 20%/cash 30% that I determined was risk parity?Mark Leavy wrote: Think of this post as just an example. You need some metric that can give you an accurate picture of the model performing to plan. Pick whatever you want - but a day/week up/down will not give you the information you are looking for.
"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!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Yes, we should have it track the global financial asset portfolio so we can stop worrying about tracking error anxiety.barrett wrote: Also, I really think we need a quick performance link on the home page of this forum so that we all know what we are talking about when we get into the debate about whether or not the PP's current performance is tracking its historical performance. I get frustrated when I read most 'tracking error' posts because the PP is not supposed to track some other index like the S&P 500 or a 60/40 Bogleheads setup. We should only be comparing it to itself. Only then can we have reasonable discussions about whether or not it is lagging, broken, outperforming, regressing to the mean, etc.
"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!
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
If you are the type of person that insists on making opinions on whether assets are over/undervalued, passive investing just isn't for you. It doesn't matter how you structure your portfolio (PP, 60/40, etc.), something will always be rising, falling, "overvalued" or "undervalued". The PP is particularly bad for such a person because the individual assets are in fact quite volatile and swing rapidly from highs to lows and vice versa.Reub wrote: What about when 2 assets are falling and the other is overvalued?
Honestly, if you are so concerned, just go to cash for awhile until 1) two assets aren't falling and 2) the other asset doesn't appear overvalued. What do you have to lose? It depends on your age of course, but if you have plenty of investing years left, you still have plenty of time to make gains and in the meantime what's more valuable than peace of mind?
- buddtholomew
- Executive Member
- Posts: 2464
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Where do we find evidence of these 2 fundamental principles of the portfolio - namely another asset MUST be rising when one or more is falling and you will ALWAYS have one winner that is sufficient to protect you. These are at the core of the PP philosophy. How can you be so sure?MediumTex wrote:And I would point Reub back to some of the PP basics, like if one asset is falling, another asset MUST be rising, and if you can somehow find proxies for assets associated with all conceivable economic environments, then you will always have at least one winner in your portfolio, and that's enough to protect you.Pointedstick wrote:What long-term bull market in gold?Reub wrote: Maybe budd has a point. Is the PP positively biased because of the long term bull markets in gold and treasuries?
I have personally witnessed 1 negative Year and YTD we are negative as well. I don't recall the specifics, but negative years are 2-5 in 40 and now they are becoming more frequent.
Last edited by buddtholomew on Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool" --Feynman.
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
May be helpful if everyone provides their definition of "protection" first because I'm sure MT's will be different than yours.buddtholomew wrote: Where do we find evidence of these 2 fundamental principles of the portfolio - namely another asset MUST be rising when one or more is falling and you will ALWAYS have one winner that is sufficient to protect you. These are at the core of the PP philosophy. How can you be so sure?
I have personally witnessed 1 negative Year and YTD we are negative as well. I don't recall the specifics, but negative years are 2-5 in 40 and now they are becoming more frequent.
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
+1barrett wrote: I get frustrated when I read most 'tracking error' posts because the PP is not supposed to track some other index like the S&P 500 or a 60/40 Bogleheads setup. We should only be comparing it to itself. Only then can we have reasonable discussions about whether or not it is lagging, broken, outperforming, regressing to the mean, etc.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
He means that in real terms. Cash certainly won't go up in nominal terms when the other three are declining.buddtholomew wrote: Where do we find evidence of these 2 fundamental principles of the portfolio - namely another asset MUST be rising when one or more is falling and you will ALWAYS have one winner that is sufficient to protect you. These are at the core of the PP philosophy. How can you be so sure?
Look, if you find the vanilla PP too risky the simplest solution to the problem is to increase the cash balance so that the overall portfolio risk is at a level you're comfortable with historically.
If you're arguing that the non-correlation of the assets is breaking down, well, what is the alternative?
Last edited by MachineGhost on Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:35 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!
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Budd, The actual number of negative years in real terms is eight so far. This is according to the data in Craig & MT's book. I am also including 2013 (their data only went through 2011). The reason the nominal returns are now more frequently negative is most likely because they are clustered around a lower number due to really low inflation.buddtholomew wrote: I have personally witnessed 1 negative Year and YTD we are negative as well. I don't recall the specifics, but negative years are 2-5 in 40 and now they are becoming more frequent.
For example, if we have 4% - 5% inflation, we would expect much higher nominal returns than we are getting now. The higher nominal returns help to "mask" the down years because even in a down year, you might still be getting an annualized nominal return of 2% or so (think 1999 to 2002).
When looked at from this perspective, the PP is (I would argue) in fact underperforming slightly since the middle of 2013. This is what Mark's graph shows. If it continues to underperform for an extended period, then maybe the approach needs to be rethought.
Your entry point IIRC was early 2013, so a tough time psychologically, but over the long haul it shouldn't matter much.
Last edited by barrett on Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- buddtholomew
- Executive Member
- Posts: 2464
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
I hold additional cash (duration, 5.6 years) to dampen the volatility, but since 09/2011 I have only earned a total return of approximately 13%, 3.4% CAGR). For comparison purposes a 50/0/25/25 over the same period returned 45%, 10.4% CAGR). I bought gold at the top and now bond yields are at the bottom....the fun never ends.MachineGhost wrote:He means that in real terms. Cash certainly won't go up in nominal terms when the other three are declining.buddtholomew wrote: Where do we find evidence of these 2 fundamental principles of the portfolio - namely another asset MUST be rising when one or more is falling and you will ALWAYS have one winner that is sufficient to protect you. These are at the core of the PP philosophy. How can you be so sure?
Look, if you find the vanilla PP too risky the simplest solution to the problem is to increase the cash balance so that the overall portfolio risk is at a level you're comfortable with historically.
If you're arguing that the non-correlation of the assets is breaking down, well, what is the alternative?
I intend to stay invested in the PP, but the experience has not been as rewarding as I expected.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool" --Feynman.
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Is anyone here really saying that gold and treasuries can't enter into 30 year bear cycles? And that equities can't decline also? Can I have that guarantee in writing?
Last edited by Reub on Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Can we come up with some terms besides "bear and bull"? They both start with "B" and at my age I have a hard time remembering which is which.Reub wrote: Is anyone here really sayijg that gold and treasuries can't enter into 30 year bear cycles?
(But just as soon as I wrote this I think I may have figured it out, I think. Just add "shit" after bull and don't think about whether a bear shits in the woods or not).
Formerly known as madbean
- Mark Leavy
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
- Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Barrett my apologies for the late reply. I've been enjoying San Diego - and fatty red meat and red wineMark,
Thanks for sharing that. A couple of questions...
By "inflation adjusted growth rate" you mean, real rate of return, correct? If so, shouldn't that number be something around 4.5% instead of 8.45%?
Your post is similar to Ryan's Melvey's "What's My Benchmark" article here:
http://www.stableinvesting.com/2011/04/ ... hmark.html
Also, I really think we need a quick performance link on the home page of this forum so that we all know what we are talking about when we get into the debate about whether or not the PP's current performance is tracking its historical performance. I get frustrated when I read most 'tracking error' posts because the PP is not supposed to track some other index like the S&P 500 or a 60/40 Bogleheads setup. We should only be comparing it to itself. Only then can we have reasonable discussions about whether or not it is lagging, broken, outperforming, regressing to the mean, etc.
Your comment made good sense - and so I went through my spreadsheet today, brought it up to date (as of Friday's close) and tried to find some errors. I didn't find any, but that wouldn't be the first time that I missed something obvious...
It's only about 10 years of data - so far from enough information to make any long term evaluations.
Yes - When I say "inflation adjusted returns" I really mean "real returns". From what I can tell, the last 10 years have been better than average for the HBPP. Closer to 8 to 9 percent real instead of 4 to 5%. That should be a good indicator that you can't rely too much on any 10 year model...
So... here's what I have in my spreadsheet. From March 26, 2004 to June 5 2015:
The black line is nominal returns (9.58% CAGR over this period)
The blue/purple line, just below it is the inflation adjusted return. (7.32% over this period)
The vertical lines are rebalance points (15/35)
Here's the logarithmic chart of just the real (inflation adjusted) returns.
The "best fit" line to these returns is 8.43%. Note that that the best fit line is a bit higher than actual.
Again, don't get your head too caught up in just the last 10 years. All this tells me is that the HBPP doesn't appear to be currently broken, and that the last 10 years have been better than average.
AND... Please don't believe these charts on face value. I've been known to make plenty of clerical errors in the past. If your data disagrees, I would very much like to know.
To Reub's point - I don't have a chart for the next 10 years. As soon as I figure out how to do that, I'll let you guys know right away.
Pinky swear.
Last edited by Mark Leavy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mark Leavy
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
- Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Using these allocations and rebalance band:MachineGhost wrote: Could you run it again but this time with gold at 20%/cash 30% that I determined was risk parity?
Nominal CAGR = 9.29%, Real 7.04%
[I updated this with a fixed lower rebalance band on gold. I had messed it up on the first run while using MG's recommended 20%]
Last edited by Mark Leavy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Mark, I trust your data and number-crunching, but peaktotrough over the same period of time gives a nominal CAGR of 7.50% (dividends not reinvested) or 7.57% (dividends reinvested), and that difference of over 2% from your value seems too big to ignore. The rebalance dates are different, too. Are you using monthly or weekly data and, therefore, missing some temporary rebalance band breaches? Even so, I wouldn't have guessed that checking the account daily, weekly, or monthly would make such a big difference in returns. Any ideas about the discrepancy?Mark Leavy wrote: So... here's what I have in my spreadsheet. From March 26, 2004 to June 5 2015:
The black line is nominal returns (9.58% CAGR over this period)
The blue/purple line, just below it is the inflation adjusted return. (7.32% over this period)
The vertical lines are rebalance points (15/35)
- Mark Leavy
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
- Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Thanks for the heads up Pet Hog. I hadn't thought to check against Peak to Trough.Pet Hog wrote:Mark, I trust your data and number-crunching, but peaktotrough over the same period of time gives a nominal CAGR of 7.50% (dividends not reinvested) or 7.57% (dividends reinvested), and that difference of over 2% from your value seems too big to ignore. The rebalance dates are different, too. Are you using monthly or weekly data and, therefore, missing some temporary rebalance band breaches? Even so, I wouldn't have guessed that checking the account daily, weekly, or monthly would make such a big difference in returns. Any ideas about the discrepancy?Mark Leavy wrote: So... here's what I have in my spreadsheet. From March 26, 2004 to June 5 2015:
The black line is nominal returns (9.58% CAGR over this period)
The blue/purple line, just below it is the inflation adjusted return. (7.32% over this period)
The vertical lines are rebalance points (15/35)
My numbers are using daily data - downloaded from yahoo - dividends going to cash.
You're right - the difference sounds too big to ignore.
I don't have a lot of time to investigate right now. Let me think about it...
I tried a quick upload of my excel spreadsheet to google docs and it choked. When I have more time, I'll figure out how to share the data so that more eyes than just mine can figure out the discrepancy.
Much appreciated.
Mark
Updated -
Here's a dropbox link to my spreadsheet (excel):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dcfywsgle95g7 ... .xlsx?dl=0
I'm not sure if this allows you to change my personal spreadsheet or not - so please be kind and copy to your own hard drive and play with a local copy.
If you want to play with the allocations or bands - see the light green boxes near the top. All of the rest of it should be just standard data and formulas.
Cheers,
Mark
Last edited by Mark Leavy on Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Mark Leavy, thank you for all of that great information in your posts.
To respond to someone several posts up, when I wrote that if one asset is falling, another one must be rising, I only meant that in the general sense that if someone is selling something, they are necessarily buying something else, even if it only the cash they get for the asset they are selling. If everyone in the U.S. sold all of their stocks for dollars, the value of the dollar would rise.
To respond to someone several posts up, when I wrote that if one asset is falling, another one must be rising, I only meant that in the general sense that if someone is selling something, they are necessarily buying something else, even if it only the cash they get for the asset they are selling. If everyone in the U.S. sold all of their stocks for dollars, the value of the dollar would rise.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Looks good, but shouldn't the rebalancing bands be 12% / 28% for gold and 18% / 42% for cash?Mark Leavy wrote: Using these allocations and rebalance band:
"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!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Correct me if I'm wrong: The real value of cash will rise but the nominal value will stay the same whereas stocks would decline in both nominal and real terms. It's only relevant to other currency's lesser demands if cash rises in real terms. Fortunately, we don't live in a domestic only vacuum economy.MediumTex wrote: To respond to someone several posts up, when I wrote that if one asset is falling, another one must be rising, I only meant that in the general sense that if someone is selling something, they are necessarily buying something else, even if it only the cash they get for the asset they are selling. If everyone in the U.S. sold all of their stocks for dollars, the value of the dollar would rise.
"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!
- buddtholomew
- Executive Member
- Posts: 2464
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 4:16 pm
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
Pretty weak argument if these are truly PP principles. Perhaps these investors are selling US equities to purchase INT equities. It's a fallacy to believe money can only flow to one of the 4 asset classes a PP investor holds.MediumTex wrote: Mark Leavy, thank you for all of that great information in your posts.
To respond to someone several posts up, when I wrote that if one asset is falling, another one must be rising, I only meant that in the general sense that if someone is selling something, they are necessarily buying something else, even if it only the cash they get for the asset they are selling. If everyone in the U.S. sold all of their stocks for dollars, the value of the dollar would rise.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool" --Feynman.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: New PPer needs guidance.
+1. Don't be a PPhead. Think outside the box.buddtholomew wrote: Pretty weak argument if these are truly PP principles. Perhaps these investors are selling US equities to purchase INT equities. It's a fallacy to believe money can only flow to one of the 4 asset classes a PP investor holds.
"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!