Retirement savings new research

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
ROIGuy
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 10:10 am

Retirement savings new research

Post by ROIGuy »

This is an excellent blog about retirement savings research.
http://www.theretirementcafe.com/

Summary site on "Spend Safely in Retirement Strategy"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spend-safe ... -strategy/
SevenBridgesRoad
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:14 am

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by SevenBridgesRoad »

Agree. Found Dirk’s blog post insightful (‘be skeptical’ is a pretty good rule overall, not just re published research). I also found his previous post helpful: his annual review process. Lots of folks here could relax more than they do if they checked their portfolio per Dirk’s advice.
antiqueman
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by antiqueman »

I read the article. I found it interesting.

Is the takeaway from the article is that one in retirement should consider holding 12 years of safe assets like CD's short term bonds etc? As I understand the article, its during the first 12 years that the SRR is the potential grim reaper for the retirement portfolio.
livesoft
Posts: 86076
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by livesoft »

^I think the takeaway from the SSR article is that one should work until they are 70.5 years old.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
antiqueman
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by antiqueman »

[quote=livesoft post_id=4321353 time=1547575969 user_id=648]
^I think the takeaway from the SSR article is that one should work until they are 70.5 years old.



[Why?
Amadis_of_Gaul
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:57 pm

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by Amadis_of_Gaul »

Mr.BB wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:47 am This is an excellent blog about retirement savings research.
http://www.theretirementcafe.com/

Summary site on "Spend Safely in Retirement Strategy"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spend-safe ... -strategy/
Thanks for linking! This was extremely useful.

As I understand the CBS News article, the optimal way to spend down assets in retirement is to ALWAYS wait until 70 to take Social Security. Until then, you should rely entirely upon your own savings. Basically, by doing so, you're purchasing an annuity from the government at above-market rates. If you die early, so what? You haven't run out of money, and dying before running out of money is the point of the exercise. If you live for a long time, your mighty max-Social Security annuity will protect you from running out of money much better than a wimpy SS-at-62 annuity.
livesoft
Posts: 86076
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by livesoft »

antiqueman wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:25 pm
livesoft wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:12 pm ^I think the takeaway from the SSR article is that one should work until they are 70.5 years old.



[Why?
It is explained in the article.
The best way for an older worker to implement the "Spend Safely in Retirement" strategy is to work just enough to pay for living expenses until age 70 in order to enable delaying Social Security benefits. In essence, "age 70 is the new 65." To make this method work, retirees may also need to significantly reduce their living expenses.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
Topic Author
ROIGuy
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 10:10 am

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by ROIGuy »

It is similar (overlapping) what Wade Phau says that when you retire that getting through the first few years is everything. He prefers a higher concentration in bonds and then slowly increasing your stock holdings; and of course hope there is not a recession the first couple years you are in retirement.
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by RadAudit »

This from the article -
If we successfully navigate the first five years of portfolio returns then we still have to negotiate the next five and eventually the next two. There's no reason to expect that if you make it through the first 5 years of retirement that your risk will simply disappear.
reminded me of something I recall I read on the forum - There is no optimal withdrawal strategy that would totally mitigate sequence of return risk. In essence, there is no approach that will guarantee that you won't go bankrupt.

Always thought that was such a cheery observation, and so reassuring. :wink:
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
overthought
Posts: 274
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:44 am

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by overthought »

For the interested, I was able to backtrack to the actual report: http://longevity.stanford.edu/wp-conten ... ersion.pdf

Cheers!
Beliavsky
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:21 am

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by Beliavsky »

RadAudit wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:37 pm This from the article -
If we successfully navigate the first five years of portfolio returns then we still have to negotiate the next five and eventually the next two. There's no reason to expect that if you make it through the first 5 years of retirement that your risk will simply disappear.
reminded me of something I recall I read on the forum - There is no optimal withdrawal strategy that would totally mitigate sequence of return risk. In essence, there is no approach that will guarantee that you won't go bankrupt.
If you withdraw a constant fraction of your portfolio each year, your terminal wealth is independent of the sequence of returns, but of course the amount and timing of your spending does depend on the sequence of returns.
AlohaJoe
Posts: 6609
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Saigon, Vietnam

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by AlohaJoe »

Mr.BB wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:05 am It is similar (overlapping) what Wade Phau says that when you retire that getting through the first few years is everything. He prefers a higher concentration in bonds and then slowly increasing your stock holdings
I think that's a mischaracterisation. He prefers you not hold any bonds at all. Read his article "Why Bond Funds Don’t Belong in Retirement Portfolios". And in "Optimizing Retirement Income by Integrating Retirement Plans, IRAs, and Home Equity" he and his co-authors again reiterate the advice for not holding any bonds in retirement, recommending that retirees hold 100% stocks.
Our metrics support investing the RMD portion significantly in stocks – up to 100% if the retiree can tolerate the additional volatility (which is modest because of the dominance of Social Security benefits).
I think it is more fair to say that Pfau has written a lot of things and not all of it agrees with everything else he's written. Maybe that's a sign that his opinions have changed as he has learned more. He hasn't really written anything in the last year so it is hard to say what his current thinking really is.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by willthrill81 »

Beliavsky wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:33 pm
RadAudit wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:37 pm This from the article -
If we successfully navigate the first five years of portfolio returns then we still have to negotiate the next five and eventually the next two. There's no reason to expect that if you make it through the first 5 years of retirement that your risk will simply disappear.
reminded me of something I recall I read on the forum - There is no optimal withdrawal strategy that would totally mitigate sequence of return risk. In essence, there is no approach that will guarantee that you won't go bankrupt.
If you withdraw a constant fraction of your portfolio each year, your terminal wealth is independent of the sequence of returns, but of course the amount and timing of your spending does depend on the sequence of returns.
Right. By withdrawing a percentage of your portfolio, you've completely removed sequence of returns risk from the equation. But by doing so, you must accept volatile withdrawals that may shrink over time to the point that they are inadequate to fund your needs.

A constant sum withdrawal strategy is at one end of the spectrum, and a constant percentage withdrawal strategy is at the other. Between these extremes, there are an infinite number of strategies to be employed. One of the closer methods to the middle is the time value of money approach, where you base your withdrawals on a conservative rate of return and the conservatively estimated length of your desired withdrawals. It's impossible to run out of money before your desired end point, but it tends to result in much less volatile withdrawals than a constant percentage approach.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by willthrill81 »

AlohaJoe wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:11 pm
Mr.BB wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:05 am It is similar (overlapping) what Wade Phau says that when you retire that getting through the first few years is everything. He prefers a higher concentration in bonds and then slowly increasing your stock holdings
I think that's a mischaracterisation. He prefers you not hold any bonds at all. Read his article "Why Bond Funds Don’t Belong in Retirement Portfolios".
I had not read that before. Very interesting. Has there been a thread here discussing it?
The Sensible Steward
Beliavsky
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:21 am

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by Beliavsky »

willthrill81 wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:35 pm
AlohaJoe wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:11 pm
Mr.BB wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:05 am It is similar (overlapping) what Wade Phau says that when you retire that getting through the first few years is everything. He prefers a higher concentration in bonds and then slowly increasing your stock holdings
I think that's a mischaracterisation. He prefers you not hold any bonds at all. Read his article "Why Bond Funds Don’t Belong in Retirement Portfolios".
I had not read that before. Very interesting. Has there been a thread here discussing it?
Yes -- Googling "Why Bond Funds Don’t Belong in Retirement Portfolios" the 3rd link is a Bogleheads thread Pfau: Why Bond Funds Don't Belong in Retirement Portfolios
.
Topic Author
ROIGuy
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 10:10 am

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by ROIGuy »

AlohaJoe wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:11 pm
Mr.BB wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:05 am It is similar (overlapping) what Wade Phau says that when you retire that getting through the first few years is everything. He prefers a higher concentration in bonds and then slowly increasing your stock holdings
I think that's a mischaracterisation. He prefers you not hold any bonds at all. Read his article "Why Bond Funds Don’t Belong in Retirement Portfolios". And in "Optimizing Retirement Income by Integrating Retirement Plans, IRAs, and Home Equity" he and his co-authors again reiterate the advice for not holding any bonds in retirement, recommending that retirees hold 100% stocks.
Our metrics support investing the RMD portion significantly in stocks – up to 100% if the retiree can tolerate the additional volatility (which is modest because of the dominance of Social Security benefits).
I think it is more fair to say that Pfau has written a lot of things and not all of it agrees with everything else he's written. Maybe that's a sign that his opinions have changed as he has learned more. He hasn't really written anything in the last year so it is hard to say what his current thinking really is.
Here is a subsection of an article from one of his papers "In turn, Pfau and Kitces (2014) found that rising equity glide paths in retirement—where the portfolio starts out conservative and becomes more aggressive as retirement progresses—have the potential to modestly reduce both the probability of failure and the magnitude of failure for retirees relative to a static portfolio or a declining equity glide path. This result may appear counterintuitive. Yet, the conclusion is actually logical when viewed from the perspective of what scenarios cause a client’s retirement to fail (at least when the starting spending rate is modest)." Here is the link for the article. https://www.onefpa.org/journal/Pages/MA ... Asset.aspx

I do agree that his stance has modified over the years, but I think the key is all based around where the market is (overvalued/ fairly valued / undervalued) when a person retires.
rosemary11
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:21 am

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by rosemary11 »

According to SS/RMD study, page 20:
"We assumed a withdrawal percentage of 3.5% from ages 65 to 70."
I would appreciate your explanation of 3.5%:
example : 1000k IRA balance
age 65: $35k
age 66: 35k + inflation OR 3.5% of the latest balance on 12/31 of the prior year?
Thanks.
RadAudit
Posts: 4387
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Second star on the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by RadAudit »

willthrill81 wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:29 pm
Beliavsky wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:33 pm
RadAudit wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:37 pm This from the article -
If we successfully navigate the first five years of portfolio returns then we still have to negotiate the next five and eventually the next two. There's no reason to expect that if you make it through the first 5 years of retirement that your risk will simply disappear.
reminded me of something I recall I read on the forum - There is no optimal withdrawal strategy that would totally mitigate sequence of return risk. In essence, there is no approach that will guarantee that you won't go bankrupt.
If you withdraw a constant fraction of your portfolio each year, your terminal wealth is independent of the sequence of returns, but of course the amount and timing of your spending does depend on the sequence of returns.
Right. By withdrawing a percentage of your portfolio, you've completely removed sequence of returns risk from the equation. But by doing so, you must accept volatile withdrawals that may shrink over time to the point that they are inadequate to fund your needs.


Thank you both for reminding me, correctly by the way, that it's not so much the withdrawal approach you use; but, those pesky fixed and quasi-fixed expenses that get you every time.
FI is the best revenge. LBYM. Invest the rest. Stay the course. Die anyway. - PS: The cavalry isn't coming, kids. You are on your own.
NotWhoYouThink
Posts: 3595
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by NotWhoYouThink »

livesoft wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:10 pm
antiqueman wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:25 pm
livesoft wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:12 pm ^I think the takeaway from the SSR article is that one should work until they are 70.5 years old.



[Why?
It is explained in the article.
The best way for an older worker to implement the "Spend Safely in Retirement" strategy is to work just enough to pay for living expenses until age 70 in order to enable delaying Social Security benefits. In essence, "age 70 is the new 65." To make this method work, retirees may also need to significantly reduce their living expenses.
Kind of buried the lede, didn't they?
livesoft
Posts: 86076
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by livesoft »

NotWhoYouThink wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:51 amKind of buried the lede, didn't they?
Yes. It would have been so much simpler and shorter if they had simply stated: Work until you die.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
dkturner
Posts: 1940
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:58 pm

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by dkturner »

AlohaJoe wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:11 pm
Mr.BB wrote: Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:05 am It is similar (overlapping) what Wade Phau says that when you retire that getting through the first few years is everything. He prefers a higher concentration in bonds and then slowly increasing your stock holdings
I think that's a mischaracterisation. He prefers you not hold any bonds at all. Read his article "Why Bond Funds Don’t Belong in Retirement Portfolios". And in "Optimizing Retirement Income by Integrating Retirement Plans, IRAs, and Home Equity" he and his co-authors again reiterate the advice for not holding any bonds in retirement, recommending that retirees hold 100% stocks.
Our metrics support investing the RMD portion significantly in stocks – up to 100% if the retiree can tolerate the additional volatility (which is modest because of the dominance of Social Security benefits).
I think it is more fair to say that Pfau has written a lot of things and not all of it agrees with everything else he's written. Maybe that's a sign that his opinions have changed as he has learned more. He hasn't really written anything in the last year so it is hard to say what his current thinking really is.
I don’t think Pfau has a problem with using fixed income in a retirement portfolio, he just prefers annuities over bond funds. He does recommend a “significant” allocation to equities. Significant means different things to different people, and could approach 100% for some risk taking investors. Pfau’s significant equity allocation thing is probably related to his published research, which indicates that increasing equity allocation during retirement has, historically, led to better outcomes than decreasing equity allocations during retirement.
User avatar
onthecusp
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 3:25 pm

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by onthecusp »

antiqueman wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:47 am I read the article. I found it interesting.

Is the takeaway from the article is that one in retirement should consider holding 12 years of safe assets like CD's short term bonds etc? As I understand the article, its during the first 12 years that the SRR is the potential grim reaper for the retirement portfolio.
I think it is also interesting that 12 years of safe assets in a 30 year retirement is exactly 40% or a 60/40 asset allocation. Not bad advice but not exactly earthshaking to say follow the assumptions in the study that showed 4% is a safe withdrawal rate.
User avatar
goodenyou
Posts: 3602
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:57 pm
Location: Skating to Where the Puck is Going to Be..or on the golf course

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by goodenyou »

Isn’t Pfau an advocate of the Essential Portfolio and Discretionary Portfolio concept? Using a SPIA for the EP and letting the rest ride in equities for the DP? Essentially taking all the risk in the discretionary side.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" | “At 50, everyone has the face he deserves”
Scooter57
Posts: 2019
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:20 am

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by Scooter57 »

To make this work the person must ensure they don't get laid off and must also maintain the physical and mental skills needed to do their job.

This can be harder to do then the retirement theorists think.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by willthrill81 »

Mr.BB wrote: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:47 am This is an excellent blog about retirement savings research.
http://www.theretirementcafe.com/
He's very knowledgeable, but he comes across as too skeptical of stocks. It seems like he tries to convince readers that stocks are risky in at least half of his posts. Further, like ERN, he spends far too much time beating up on safe-withdrawal rates despite the fact that virtually no one is actually strictly adhering to them.
The Sensible Steward
Jimmie
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by Jimmie »

Scooter57 wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:22 pm To make this work the person must ensure they don't get laid off and must also maintain the physical and mental skills needed to do their job.

This can be harder to do then the retirement theorists think.
Best point I've seen in a while here.

My GF and I have good jobs that pay well. We are responsible, work hard and are ages 63 and 61 respectively. With retirement on the horizon, we are constantly questioning if we can make it to the end. Every day we are mentally and physically exhausted. We see where our companies are going (not good). We see what we have saved up. This creates constant evaluations of various "what if?" scenarios ranging from retiring tomorrow to retiring when we each reach 70, which we both DON'T want to do.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by willthrill81 »

Jimmie wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:37 am
Scooter57 wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:22 pm To make this work the person must ensure they don't get laid off and must also maintain the physical and mental skills needed to do their job.

This can be harder to do then the retirement theorists think.
Best point I've seen in a while here.

My GF and I have good jobs that pay well. We are responsible, work hard and are ages 63 and 61 respectively. With retirement on the horizon, we are constantly questioning if we can make it to the end. Every day we are mentally and physically exhausted. We see where our companies are going (not good). We see what we have saved up. This creates constant evaluations of various "what if?" scenarios ranging from retiring tomorrow to retiring when we each reach 70, which we both DON'T want to do.
About a year ago, I came across the Cheap RV Living channel on YouTube. It's all about people who live part-time or full-time, usually the latter, in a car, van, school bus, or small RV. They do so for very little expense, with many of them living on $1k monthly or even less and many having done so for years. It sounds crazy, but when you see how comfortably many of them live and how carefree they are, it has a certain appeal to it. Being natural travelers, our family could probably do this and be quite happy. In fact, my wife and I plan on doing something similar (in a real RV) after I retire. I take comfort in knowing that even if things turn out poorly with my career, the markets, etc., we could do something like this and still be content. Others have taken comfort in knowing that they could become ex-pats in a number of other countries and live very well on what would be a meager income in the U.S.

Unfortunately, we tend to grow so accustomed to things that the very possibility of needing to do something radically different causes us great fear. It should not be so.

I was recently speaking with a friend who lived in a very HCOL area of the U.S. known around the world. He said that those who live there tend to get caught into thinking that living anywhere else, even in the U.S., is simply unthinkable, akin to moving to a third-world country and living in poverty. But once he left, he quickly saw the folly of such thinking and feels sorry for those still plagued by it.
The Sensible Steward
CurlyDave
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:37 am

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by CurlyDave »

willthrill81 wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:10 pm
...About a year ago, I came across the Cheap RV Living channel on YouTube. It's all about people who live part-time or full-time, usually the latter, in a car, van, school bus, or small RV. They do so for very little expense, with many of them living on $1k monthly or even less and many having done so for years. It sounds crazy, but when you see how comfortably many of them live and how carefree they are, it has a certain appeal to it. Being natural travelers, our family could probably do this and be quite happy. In fact, my wife and I plan on doing something similar (in a real RV) after I retire. I take comfort in knowing that even if things turn out poorly with my career, the markets, etc., we could do something like this and still be content. Others have taken comfort in knowing that they could become ex-pats in a number of other countries and live very well on what would be a meager income in the U.S.

Unfortunately, we tend to grow so accustomed to things that the very possibility of needing to do something radically different causes us great fear. It should not be so.

I was recently speaking with a friend who lived in a very HCOL area of the U.S. known around the world. He said that those who live there tend to get caught into thinking that living anywhere else, even in the U.S., is simply unthinkable, akin to moving to a third-world country and living in poverty. But once he left, he quickly saw the folly of such thinking and feels sorry for those still plagued by it.
DW and I bought an RV, not the largest, but far from the smallest (about 30' motorhome) which we used while we looked for rural retirement properties and lived in while building our retirement home on 40 acres. While I could have been OK with a permanent RV lifestyle, DW would not have been happy.

There are other, frequently unspoken, problems with RV living that one should be aware of before committing to that decision.

The biggest is that you will be living in a depreciating asset. While this may not be an initial problem, sooner or later, age and medical issues are going to make a fixed location very desirable, if not absolutely necessary. Being out of the housing market for a lengthy period may make getting back in very difficult. And, it is not always possible to just live in an RV park at that point. Most parks have age limits on the RVs they will accept, and if you have spent 15 years touring this may well be an issue.

RVs are built to different standards than fixed housing and the entrances require more physical capability than fixed housing. This is seldom an issue at 60 or less, but at 70+ I am not going to be able to get in and out of either a motorhome or trailer for much longer.
Answering a question is easy -- asking the right question is the hard part.
The Wizard
Posts: 13356
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by The Wizard »

Jimmie wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:37 am
Scooter57 wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 12:22 pm To make this work the person must ensure they don't get laid off and must also maintain the physical and mental skills needed to do their job.

This can be harder to do then the retirement theorists think.
Best point I've seen in a while here.

My GF and I have good jobs that pay well. We are responsible, work hard and are ages 63 and 61 respectively. With retirement on the horizon, we are constantly questioning if we can make it to the end. Every day we are mentally and physically exhausted. We see where our companies are going (not good). We see what we have saved up. This creates constant evaluations of various "what if?" scenarios ranging from retiring tomorrow to retiring when we each reach 70, which we both DON'T want to do.
This is why it's generally a good idea to start saving for retirement on day one of full-time employment and increase your percentage of savings most years.
Then as one approaches age 60, there are more options at your disposal...
Attempted new signature...
Jimmie
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Retirement savings new research

Post by Jimmie »

The Wizard wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:50 amThen as one approaches age 60, there are more options at your disposal...
Don't get me wrong, we do have options. The obvious best option, financially, is to work until 70. My GF and I have worked too hard at grueling jobs to strive for that option only. I am constantly analyzing other options to arrive at a better life quality/financial balance. None of them involve eating dog food under a bridge.
Post Reply