Transitioning from a Boglehead 60/40 to Permanent Portfolio

[pmward]

Do keep in mind though that there is no reason stocks have to perform better than any other asset class. Matter of fact, it's still a fairly recent phenomenon history wise that stocks have out performed bonds. For most of history stocks and bonds pretty much returned even. To tortoises point, stocks are also leveraged. All that debt the companies hold is levering up the stocks you hold. Is it likely stocks continue to out perform over our lifetime? Probably, but it certainly is no guarantee like the Boglehead community likes to think it is. Burying your head in the sand is not an effective risk management technique. You can chant "stay the course" all day every day, but it sure doesn't protect you from a Japan style situation from happening. Extrapolating the best 40 years of performance ever logged in history infinitely into the future is bound to be a failing proposition at some point. Are we the generation it fails on? I don't know. But I know I do not have the stomach to be 100% stocks in my long term holdings, even only being 38 years old. Though, with my high savings rate I also do not need to take that additional risk. At what point does my ability to sleep at night take a higher priority to unnecessary greed? It's times like these when we learn the answer to that question. Most people are not aware of the risk they are assuming, until reality inevitably slaps them in the face like a sack of bricks. Like Mathjak always alludes to, looking at percentage drops on a screen in a backtest is one thing, but looking at the absolute losses in your account is another thing entirely.

Also, I'll admit that I did pop onto the Bogleheads forum for a few earlier this week. Just being there and reading what they were discussing stressed me out, so I chose to log off.

[turbo8214]

Do keep in mind though that there is no reason stocks have to perform better than any other asset class. Matter of fact, it's still a fairly recent phenomenon history wise that stocks have out performed bonds. For most of history stocks and bonds pretty much returned even.

What do you mean by recent? Are you referring to the last few decades or the past 100 years or so?

To tortoises point, stocks are also leveraged. All that debt the companies hold is levering up the stocks you hold. Is it likely stocks continue to out perform over our lifetime? Probably, but it certainly is no guarantee like the Boglehead community likes to think it is. Burying your head in the sand is not an effective risk management technique. You can chant "stay the course" all day every day, but it sure doesn't protect you from a Japan style situation from happening.

Here's one thing you can chant every day - "Past performance does not equal future results".

What if this chaos that is going on now leads to the stock market further declining? Every week, the takes one step forward and two steps back. It's already down almost 1/3. If this continues on much longer, it will be digging a hole that will be more and more difficult to climb out of.

Perhaps the governments gets involved eventually and places rules that make it difficult for the market to rise and fall so fast. That may not be a bad thing to implement more controls but it could be too late.

Extrapolating the best 40 years of performance ever logged in history infinitely into the future is bound to be a failing proposition at some point. Are we the generation it fails on? I don't know. But I know I do not have the stomach to be 100% stocks in my long term holdings, even only being 38 years old. Though, with my high savings rate I also do not need to take that additional risk.

You hit the hammer on the nail. Save more and it is not necessary to take on that risk.

I recently had a discussion with someone who recommends getting out of the market completely, cutting expenses, having a high savings rate, and just putting it in CDs, savings accounts, and money market accounts. There is the Bogleheads appraoch. The Permanent Portfolio seems to be a compromise between the two methods.

At what point does my ability to sleep at night take a higher priority to unnecessary greed? It's times like these when we learn the answer to that question.

True!

Most people are not aware of the risk they are assuming, until reality inevitably slaps them in the face like a sack of bricks. Like Mathjak always alludes to, looking at percentage drops on a screen in a backtest is one thing, but looking at the absolute losses in your account is another thing entirely.

Also, I'll admit that I did pop onto the Bogleheads forum for a few earlier this week. Just being there and reading what they were discussing stressed me out, so I chose to log off.

The Bogleheads people don't see 60/40 as risky. They say it as conservative compared to 75/25 or 100% stock. Compared to those options, it is conservative, but there is still significant risk. Over the long run, it will likely outperform the PP but not by much, certainly not enough to endure the extreme ups and downs. How many records have been set in the past two weeks (both highs and lows)?

[mathjak107]

cutting expenses only appears the same as generating more income until expenses keep rising and there is no where left to cut from .
that is why wall street looks at profits , which can come from cost cutting and revenue which indicates growth .


there is a saying, a penny saved is a penny earned and while that is true , the fact is it will always stay a penny without good compounding ..actually it will stay less then a penny with inflation and taxes .

so you need both some cost cutting where you can and good strong compounding .. the reality is us working folk can only save small bits and pieces while raising a family and we need that long term compounding to take the small amounts we can save and compound them in to something meaningful .

i think i mentioned i grew up in a nyc housing project ... i swore to myself i would never be raising my own family in one and there was no way i was ever going to let that happen .

so pedal to the metal investing was my answer to providing enough compounding to grow those pennies over decades .


now that we are retired i WANT TO MAKE EFFICIENT USE OF WHAT WE ACCUMULATED .

i don't want to put my money in cd's or the bank . i want to at least see a 4% draw safely and enjoy all i can . i have no desire to take a 25% pay cut and count on cd's generating a 3% safe withdrawal rate ....

so the point is cost cutting is one aspect , growing income is very different from cost cutting once there is nothing left to cut and expenses still rise. making efficient use of that money is another aspect in retirement .

90% of everyone of the 119 30 year cycles we have had to date have ended with more than you started with a 50/50 portfolio at a 4% swr ... 67% of the time you ended with 2x what you started and 3x what you started with 50% of the time .

in fact sequence risk cuts both ways . the odds of 50/50 failing in retirement are thhe same odds we have of ending with 8x what we started with .

so in the end history says 50/50 is actually quite safe ... in fact 67% of those same 119 30 year periods , using just fixed income failed at 4% . i would say that is actually dangerous at 4% so you need to take a 25% pay cut to just 3% which to me is a terrible inefficient use of the money i worked so hard to accumulate and not enjoy.

119 30 year cycles says 40-60% equities are quite safe and make for efficient use of ones savings . fixed income only , not safe at all unless you take a 25% smaller draw and that to me is just inefficient use.

mathematically you need a 2% real return average the first 15 years of a 30 year retirement ...

but you could be in your 30th year and have a buck left . so while a 4% swr would hold , having a bigger balance left over is also important

[pmward]

Do keep in mind though that there is no reason stocks have to perform better than any other asset class. Matter of fact, it's still a fairly recent phenomenon history wise that stocks have out performed bonds. For most of history stocks and bonds pretty much returned even.

What do you mean by recent? Are you referring to the last few decades or the past 100 years or so?

Post industrial revolution (although the time from 1984-present is the one most people extrapolate into the future, and it's also the highest returning period in history, are odds greater that this keeps up or underperforms expectations?). Any time prior bonds and stocks tended to return about equal. Of course, interest rates also were much, much higher then. Like 20% or more. Higher interest rates does dampen stock performance, and it also dampens earnings growth as companies do not lever up with high interest rates like they do now. Leverage is a double edged sword though. There are times that leverage helps and times it hurts.

Extrapolating the best 40 years of performance ever logged in history infinitely into the future is bound to be a failing proposition at some point. Are we the generation it fails on? I don't know. But I know I do not have the stomach to be 100% stocks in my long term holdings, even only being 38 years old. Though, with my high savings rate I also do not need to take that additional risk.

You hit the hammer on the nail. Save more and it is not necessary to take on that risk.

I recently had a discussion with someone who recommends getting out of the market completely, cutting expenses, having a high savings rate, and just putting it in CDs, savings accounts, and money market accounts. There is the Bogleheads appraoch. The Permanent Portfolio seems to be a compromise between the two methods.

There is a flaw I that logic though in that CD's, savings accounts, and money market accounts are not risk free. I mean we are in a negative real yield world right now. Cash is a fixed expense not a fixed income holding. It is sad that there truly is no risk free return in 2020.

Most people are not aware of the risk they are assuming, until reality inevitably slaps them in the face like a sack of bricks. Like Mathjak always alludes to, looking at percentage drops on a screen in a backtest is one thing, but looking at the absolute losses in your account is another thing entirely.

Also, I'll admit that I did pop onto the Bogleheads forum for a few earlier this week. Just being there and reading what they were discussing stressed me out, so I chose to log off.

The Bogleheads people don't see 60/40 as risky. They say it as conservative compared to 75/25 or 100% stock. Compared to those options, it is conservative, but there is still significant risk. Over the long run, it will likely outperform the PP but not by much, certainly not enough to endure the extreme ups and downs. How many records have been set in the past two weeks (both highs and lows)?

I know the bogleheads see a 60/40 as conservative these days. It's recency bias though. Go back and read the threads from 2008/2009 timeframe. Everybody saw high stock allocations as too aggressive back then. Now not having a high stock allocation is seen as too conservative. What changed? The bogleheads are very guilty of recency bias. This means that as a whole, the bogleheads in aggregate are always bound to underperform more than over perform. Fear and greed are very apparent there, and it's actually a really good contrary indicator to see what the sentiment is currently like there. When bogleheads are aggressive, it's historically been a great time to be defensive, and when they are defensive, it's been a great time to be aggressive. Bonds are also not a full diversifier of stock risk. There are times they go up and down together. I mean the 60/40 got destroyed in the 70s after inflation every bit as much as a full stock portfolio got destroyed in 2008. 60/40 is not as safe as the lay public realize.

Most people on bogleheads are adverse to mixing in another non-correlated asset simply based on the blind faith in quotes from one or another hero that they worship, and are not based on the actual data. The dogma gets so commonly accepted that nobody really questions it and simply accepts that it is true because the crowd accepts that it is true. While obviously the PP was created by Harry Browne, who can also qualify as one of those heros, you will see that we here are much more open to questioning every last detail and not taking anything on blind faith alone. You will also see that the Golden Butterly, which is a PP that was modified due to that very questioning, is probably a more popular portfolio on this forum than the actual PP. A couple other things to keep in mind... even though a 60/40 tends to spend most of it's time above the PP, there are times periodically that it comes down to meet it. It's happened more than once, and it's bound to happen again. The GB also performs very similar to a 60/40 on the long term, but with much less volatility, much less start date sensitivity, much lower drawdowns, much quicker time to recover from drawdowns, and a higher safe withdrawal rate.

[turbo8214]

there is a saying, a penny saved is a penny earned and while that is true , the fact is it will always stay a penny without good compounding ..actually it will stay less then a penny with inflation and taxes .

Especially if the fed goes to negative rates, which is a very realistic possibility.

now that we are retired i WANT TO MAKE EFFICIENT USE OF WHAT WE ACCUMULATED .

So you're saying that the Permanent Portfolio is a retirement portfolio? As in it's ideal when one is in retirement or close to retirement, but otherwise is not?

i don't want to put my money in cd's or the bank . i want to at least see a 4% draw safely and enjoy all i can . i have no desire to take a 25% pay cut and count on cd's generating a 3% safe withdrawal rate ....

Understood, although CD's seem "safer" than Money Market accounts for the time being and they are FDIC insured.

[yankees60]

there is a saying, a penny saved is a penny earned and while that is true , the fact is it will always stay a penny without good compounding ..actually it will stay less then a penny with inflation and taxes .

Especially if the fed goes to negative rates, which is a very realistic possibility.

now that we are retired i WANT TO MAKE EFFICIENT USE OF WHAT WE ACCUMULATED .

So you're saying that the Permanent Portfolio is a retirement portfolio? As in it's ideal when one is in retirement or close to retirement, but otherwise is not?

i don't want to put my money in cd's or the bank . i want to at least see a 4% draw safely and enjoy all i can . i have no desire to take a 25% pay cut and count on cd's generating a 3% safe withdrawal rate ....

Understood, although CD's seem "safer" than Money Market accounts for the time being and they are FDIC insured.

I assume that you are referring to something like a Vanguard like Money Market account? I've have more faith in Vanguard being able to back their money market funds full of T-bills / government obligations than a bank depending upon the FDIC not running out in a true crisis.

Vinny

[Kriegsspiel]

Do keep in mind though that there is no reason stocks have to perform better than any other asset class. Matter of fact, it's still a fairly recent phenomenon history wise that stocks have out performed bonds. For most of history stocks and bonds pretty much returned even.

What do you mean by recent? Are you referring to the last few decades or the past 100 years or so?

Post industrial revolution (although the time from 1984-present is the one most people extrapolate into the future, and it's also the highest returning period in history, are odds greater that this keeps up or underperforms expectations?). Any time prior bonds and stocks tended to return about equal. Of course, interest rates also were much, much higher then. Like 20% or more. Higher interest rates does dampen stock performance, and it also dampens earnings growth as companies do not lever up with high interest rates like they do now.

I suspect the accelerating stock returns since corporations started getting really popular have a lot to do with how productive humans have become with fossil fuels. If that is correct, and what we do with them has pretty much reached a mature state, I could see total stock returns being stagnant. I believe this was the end state of classical economic predictions as well. I'm not convinced that solar/wind/Matrioska Shells will ever fully replace fossil fuels on Hubbard's downslope. Speculative.

I recently had a discussion with someone who recommends getting out of the market completely, cutting expenses, having a high savings rate, and just putting it in CDs, savings accounts, and money market accounts. There is the Bogleheads appraoch. The Permanent Portfolio seems to be a compromise between the two methods.

I say the same thing. The Permanent Portfolio is kind of like a spiced up form of cash.

[pmward]

I suspect the accelerating stock returns since corporations started getting really popular have a lot to do with how productive humans have become with fossil fuels. If that is correct, and what we do with them has pretty much reached a mature state, I could see total stock returns being stagnant. I believe this was the end state of classical economic predictions as well. I'm not convinced that solar/wind/Matrioska Shells will ever fully replace fossil fuels on Hubbard's downslope. Speculative.

Good points. Globalization had a lot to do with that as well, lowering the costs of production over time. But globalization peaked a bit ago, and now the pendulum is actually swinging back towards nationalization (you can even see that in the Corona virus panic, as people are questioning "should we be so dependent upon other countries for supply?") and that is likely to increase production costs and require a lot of CapEx to build more state of the art factories here in the U.S., both of which will place downward pressures on earnings.

[turbo8214]

Post industrial revolution (although the time from 1984-present is the one most people extrapolate into the future, and it's also the highest returning period in history, are odds greater that this keeps up or underperforms expectations?). Any time prior bonds and stocks tended to return about equal. Of course, interest rates also were much, much higher then. Like 20% or more. Higher interest rates does dampen stock performance, and it also dampens earnings growth as companies do not lever up with high interest rates like they do now. Leverage is a double edged sword though. There are times that leverage helps and times it hurts.

Interesting.

There is a flaw I that logic though in that CD's, savings accounts, and money market accounts are not risk free. I mean we are in a negative real yield world right now. Cash is a fixed expense not a fixed income holding. It is sad that there truly is no risk free return in 2020.

I locked in a CD today at a not too horrible rate. Transferred funds there from a Money Market account, which I can see going into negative territory. Of course CD rates, likes all the others, will be going down.

I know the bogleheads see a 60/40 as conservative these days. It's recency bias though. Go back and read the threads from 2008/2009 timeframe. Everybody saw high stock allocations as too aggressive back then. Now not having a high stock allocation is seen as too conservative.

I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum swings back in that direction. People there are panicking!

What changed? The bogleheads are very guilty of recency bias. This means that as a whole, the bogleheads in aggregate are always bound to underperform more than over perform. Fear and greed are very apparent there, and it's actually a really good contrary indicator to see what the sentiment is currently like there. When bogleheads are aggressive, it's historically been a great time to be defensive, and when they are defensive, it's been a great time to be aggressive. Bonds are also not a full diversifier of stock risk. There are times they go up and down together. I mean the 60/40 got destroyed in the 70s after inflation every bit as much as a full stock portfolio got destroyed in 2008. 60/40 is not as safe as the lay public realize.

Most people on bogleheads are adverse to mixing in another non-correlated asset simply based on the blind faith in quotes from one or another hero that they worship, and are not based on the actual data. The dogma gets so commonly accepted that nobody really questions it and simply accepts that it is true because the crowd accepts that it is true.

Very true. That phenmenon plays out in not only investing but in other areas of life. Group think can make one make some bad decisions.

While obviously the PP was created by Harry Browne, who can also qualify as one of those heros, you will see that we here are much more open to questioning every last detail and not taking anything on blind faith alone. You will also see that the Golden Butterly, which is a PP that was modified due to that very questioning, is probably a more popular portfolio on this forum than the actual PP. A couple other things to keep in mind... even though a 60/40 tends to spend most of it's time above the PP, there are times periodically that it comes down to meet it. It's happened more than once, and it's bound to happen again.

It could happen again very soon!

[pmward]

I know the bogleheads see a 60/40 as conservative these days. It's recency bias though. Go back and read the threads from 2008/2009 timeframe. Everybody saw high stock allocations as too aggressive back then. Now not having a high stock allocation is seen as too conservative.

I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum swings back in that direction. People there are panicking!

Good, this makes me feel better about my rebalancing back into stocks today! My Boglehead sentiment contrarian indicator is also flashing a buy signal, haha. Like I said, I tried to take a quick browse there last week, and I could just feel the stress emanating off of the computer screen. I decided I did not want to absorb their stress and fear, so I logged off and haven't been back on since.

[turbo8214]

I started the transition to PP but my settlement fund was pretty much empty and I was not allowed to exchange the stock or bond ETF for GLD. That will be my next step in the process and then the transition will be complete.

I don't have enough in my IRA to purchase enough VUSTX and GLD to balance the stock/cash holdings in the IRA, so I'm going to leave part of the 401k as 60/40 (although perhaps I should take a risk and be even less conservative with that portion). The other portion of the 401 will join the IRA in the Permanent Portfolio. Should be interesting to see which performs better as time goes on.

While I hope the PP will conserve what I'm already holding, I am tempted to increase contributions to the 401k and switch future purchases to 100% stock as the market keeps thanking. Then again, with the economy possibly taking a dump and massive lay offs occurring, that may not be such a good idea.

[turbo8214]

I assume that you are referring to something like a Vanguard like Money Market account? I've have more faith in Vanguard being able to back their money market funds full of T-bills / government obligations than a bank depending upon the FDIC not running out in a true crisis.

Vinny

The Vanguard Prime Money Market account. It is about 1/3 Treasury. Another fund they have (VUSXX) is invested in only treasuries. I would have purchased that but it requires 50K minimum.

There were Bogleheads freaking out thinking that the Vanguard Money Market fund would return under 0 after the latest rate cut by the feds, or perhaps even default eventually (ironic, isn't it?).

I figured it's time to get out if even Bogleheads are criticizing Vanguard funds. Perhaps I should spend less time hanging out on that forum. It is surreal seeing people there talking about CDs and other conservative ways to save (including building up years of emergency funds). They are not being shamed to "stay the course" as they were days or weeks ago.

[turbo8214]

I say the same thing. The Permanent Portfolio is kind of like a spiced up form of cash.

Exactly.

[turbo8214]

I know the bogleheads see a 60/40 as conservative these days. It's recency bias though. Go back and read the threads from 2008/2009 timeframe. Everybody saw high stock allocations as too aggressive back then. Now not having a high stock allocation is seen as too conservative.

I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum swings back in that direction. People there are panicking!

Good, this makes me feel better about my rebalancing back into stocks today! My Boglehead sentiment contrarian indicator is also flashing a buy signal, haha. Like I said, I tried to take a quick browse there last week, and I could just feel the stress emanating off of the computer screen. I decided I did not want to absorb their stress and fear, so I logged off and haven't been back on since.

Good idea.
I wonder how they would react if someone were to start a Permanent Portfolio thread. There was that huge thread posted around 2009 and a few not long after that, and I recall many Bogleheads looking down on the PP.

[pmward]

Good idea.
I wonder how they would react if someone were to start a Permanent Portfolio thread. There was that huge thread posted around 2009 and a few not long after that, and I recall many Bogleheads looking down on the PP.

If you actually read the 2009 thread, they were very open to the PP at that time. It was only after the market recovery, after the fear abated and greed set back in, that they started to frown on it.

[Smith1776]

Call me salty, but I have zero sympathy for Bogleheads who have derided the PP only to find themselves in dire straits now.

[Tortoise]

I figured it's time to get out if even Bogleheads are criticizing Vanguard funds. Perhaps I should spend less time hanging out on that forum. It is surreal seeing people there talking about CDs and other conservative ways to save (including building up years of emergency funds). They are not being shamed to "stay the course" as they were days or weeks ago.

I really like the "Personal Consumer Issues" and "Personal Finance (Not Investing)" sub-forums over at Bogleheads, though. They often have very good advice that's relatively untainted by Boglehead groupthink. Just lots of smart people sharing advice on all sorts of practical topics.

[turbo8214]

Good idea.
I wonder how they would react if someone were to start a Permanent Portfolio thread. There was that huge thread posted around 2009 and a few not long after that, and I recall many Bogleheads looking down on the PP.

If you actually read the 2009 thread, they were very open to the PP at that time. It was only after the market recovery, after the fear abated and greed set back in, that they started to frown on it.

I do recall reading it and seeing how it played out. Around that time, I read Fail Safe Investing and listened to Harry Browne and John Chandler'ss podcasts that I downloaded online. With that being said, I must admit that the Boglehead point of view eventually won me over. Not that I thought it was "better" nor was I against the PP by any means....I thought it was just as good and easier to handle. I did keep a small taxable account in a PP type portfolio (with less gold than it should have had but it held its ground) while the retirement accounts were 60/40. Part of my decision was due to the limited 401k options offered.

One thing I would no longer do was 100% stocks. That was my allocation in 2008 (not knowing any better) and I made a very bad move by selling after it dropped 40%. At that point, I figured I'd better educate myself when it came to investing. It just took another downturn and the re-reading of Fail Safe Investing to embrace the PP again.

[turbo8214]

I figured it's time to get out if even Bogleheads are criticizing Vanguard funds. Perhaps I should spend less time hanging out on that forum. It is surreal seeing people there talking about CDs and other conservative ways to save (including building up years of emergency funds). They are not being shamed to "stay the course" as they were days or weeks ago.

I really like the "Personal Consumer Issues" and "Personal Finance (Not Investing)" sub-forums over at Bogleheads, though. They often have very good advice that's relatively untainted by Boglehead groupthink. Just lots of smart people sharing advice on all sorts of practical topics.

That is true!

[Smith1776]

There are occasional bright spots, but I have to agree with the assessment about groupthink in the Bogleheads community.

It's really not just groupthink either. Everyone there is incredibly rude and bullying, and it's an environment that just isn't "fun." Before Larry Swedroe left he basically said that Bogleheads was becoming like a religious site full of zealots. That was spot on.

Spend enough time there and you sort of acclimate through this strange form of digital Stockholm syndrome, but it's still not a pleasant community.

Bogleheads stinks.

[yankees60]

Call me salty, but I have zero sympathy for Bogleheads who have derided the PP only to find themselves in dire straits now.

And here I thought you were going all music on me in one sentence combining, of course, Dire Straits with: https://www.amazon.com/Salty-Dog-Procol ... l_huc_item.

Vinny

[Smith1776]

Call me salty, but I have zero sympathy for Bogleheads who have derided the PP only to find themselves in dire straits now.

And here I thought you were going all music on me in one sentence combining, of course, Dire Straits with: https://www.amazon.com/Salty-Dog-Procol ... l_huc_item.

Vinny

LOL

[yankees60]

I figured it's time to get out if even Bogleheads are criticizing Vanguard funds. Perhaps I should spend less time hanging out on that forum. It is surreal seeing people there talking about CDs and other conservative ways to save (including building up years of emergency funds). They are not being shamed to "stay the course" as they were days or weeks ago.

I really like the "Personal Consumer Issues" and "Personal Finance (Not Investing)" sub-forums over at Bogleheads, though. They often have very good advice that's relatively untainted by Boglehead groupthink. Just lots of smart people sharing advice on all sorts of practical topics.

Yes, when I was investigating my proposed eyeglasses purchase I went there to see what was already available. A ton. I'd also asked here.

By the way, I ended up buying two pairs from Zenni. One for distance without contact lens in. And another for reading, again without contact lens in. $7 each! Plus $5 for shipping so $19 total. Getting the distance ones was a life saver as I was still waiting for my new contact lens to come in and I was forced into wearing my 50 year old eyeglasses which while better than nothing were really no longer what I needed. The $7 pair brought me into a whole new world. Of course, when I finally got my new semi-rigid gas permeable contact lens those were best of all.

Vinny

[Smith1776]

Yes, when I was investigating my proposed eyeglasses purchase I went there to see what was already available. A ton. I'd also asked here.

By the way, I ended up buying two pairs from Zenni. One for distance without contact lens in. And another for reading, again without contact lens in. $7 each! Plus $5 for shipping so $19 total. Getting the distance ones was a life saver as I was still waiting for my new contact lens to come in and I was forced into wearing my 50 year old eyeglasses which while better than nothing were really no longer what I needed. The $7 pair brought me into a whole new world. Of course, when I finally got my new semi-rigid gas permeable contact lens those were best of all.

Vinny

I've been having some eye problems lately. And of course I assumed the worst.

I went to the ophthalmologist and expected.... eye cancer? Some kind of degenerative retina thing? *knocks on wood*

No. It was dry eyes. Literally just dry eyes.

I'm dumb and paranoid.

[yankees60]

Yes, when I was investigating my proposed eyeglasses purchase I went there to see what was already available. A ton. I'd also asked here.

By the way, I ended up buying two pairs from Zenni. One for distance without contact lens in. And another for reading, again without contact lens in. $7 each! Plus $5 for shipping so $19 total. Getting the distance ones was a life saver as I was still waiting for my new contact lens to come in and I was forced into wearing my 50 year old eyeglasses which while better than nothing were really no longer what I needed. The $7 pair brought me into a whole new world. Of course, when I finally got my new semi-rigid gas permeable contact lens those were best of all.

Vinny

I've been having some eye problems lately. And of course I assumed the worst.

I went to the ophthalmologist and expected.... eye cancer? Some kind of degenerative retina thing? *knocks on wood*

No. It was dry eyes. Literally just dry eyes.

I'm dumb and paranoid.

in 2011 while playing basketball I noticed something in my eye floating around. Went to the eye doctor the next day. He made me an appointment the next day for the New England Retina Center. Can you believe there is a place that deals strictly with the retina?!! Anyway to get to the part that relates to you. On the way down all I can think about is how I'm going to have to adapt to being blind. I see a specialist and to my relief he tells me that it will resolve itself in about a week.

But here is the extremely good part which I know you will really relate to.

While I was at the eye doctor's office office I picked up an old Men's Journal and discovered and read this article:

https://www.mensjournal.com/features/ev ... -20120504/

I asked them if I could keep the magazine and they allowed me to. Someone had ripped out the page that had the recommended exercises.

As soon as I got home I contacted the article author and he sent me both the article and then the one with the exercises.

That article introduced me to Mark Rippitoe of Starting Strenth fame. I immediately bought both his book and DVD that the article recommended.

I read the long book twice. It has 80 pages on just how to properly do the squat exercise! I watched the DVD several times. I got lucky and from Craigslist for I think $225 got a fancy bench with half rack and olympic bar and 275 pounds of olympic weights -- value about $800.

I started doing his proscribed exercises May 2011 and I still do them, 3 days a week (Monday / Wednesday / Friday). They are a life priority for me. I call it preventative physical therapy as I could not believe how much it has improved my quality of life and reduced so much pain to finally have some muscle. I don't think that I miss those those about 156 sessions a year more than five times a year. Everything else in my life falls behind them in priority unless something truly exceptional is going on.

Vinny