Now that long TIPS have surged past 2.25% I will…

[Horton]

Actually, you’re only indifferent if you hold for ~2x duration. So, 30-40 years for LTPZ.

How can the “indifference period” exceed the maturity of the bond?

The maximum point of indifference is 2n-1. It’s just the mathematical proof. The actual point is going to vary on sequence of returns. It could be less, but cannot be more.

Assuming a constant rate increase each period, 2n-1 is the indifference point. I believe it even holds for exponential increases. But that’s getting a little bonkers.

What’s the “maximum point of indifference” for a 10 year zero coupon bond?

[Lee_WSP]

Actually, you’re only indifferent if you hold for ~2x duration. So, 30-40 years for LTPZ.

How can the “indifference period” exceed the maturity of the bond?

The maximum point of indifference is 2n-1. It’s just the mathematical proof. The actual point is going to vary on sequence of returns. It could be less, but cannot be more.

Assuming a constant rate increase each period, 2n-1 is the indifference point. I believe it even holds for exponential increases. But that’s getting a little bonkers.

What’s the “maximum point of indifference” for a 10 year zero coupon bond?

We’re discussing bond funds, which are basically rolling ladders. The individual bond is the comparison. Or something like that. Smarter people than me did the math.

[Horton]

From the wiki:

Duration has another useful summary property, which is that if the yield curve shifts in parallel, then duration is the point of indifference to interest rate changes.

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bonds:_advanced_topics

BTW, bond indifference points are mostly (entirely?) a concept confined to this forum. Just Google the term and see if you find many references outside this forum.

[Lee_WSP]

From the wiki:

Duration has another useful summary property, which is that if the yield curve shifts in parallel, then duration is the point of indifference to interest rate changes.

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bonds:_advanced_topics

BTW, bond indifference points are mostly (entirely?) a concept confined to this forum. Just Google the term and see if you find many references outside this forum.

That’s a single raise in interest rate. Not a constant rate increase. A single rate increase at the end of the ten year would put your point of indifference at twenty years by your quote.

[McQ]

Actually, you’re only indifferent if you hold for ~2x duration. So, 30-40 years for LTPZ.

How can the “indifference period” exceed the maturity of the bond?

The maximum point of indifference is 2n-1. It’s just the mathematical proof. The actual point is going to vary on sequence of returns. It could be less, but cannot be more.

Assuming a constant rate increase each period, 2n-1 is the indifference point. I believe it even holds for exponential increases. But that’s getting a little bonkers.

I am also having trouble with the 2n -1 formulation; but I dropped out of calculus in the 12th grade, so this may be my problem.*

The current 30-year Treasury, with a yield/coupon of about 4.375%, provides a handy example of the conundrum. My trusty copy of Excel indicates that the Macaulay duration for such a bond is 17 years (16.98107, to be more precise). Under the 2n - 1 formulation, the point of indifference (not sure what that means) would come three years after maturity ... which I find bothersome and troubling.

Does the formula only apply to constantly rolling funds not bonds??? Hopefully someone with more math than me can clarify the application of the 2n - 1 formula. Lee, do you have a link to the mathematical proof you mentioned?

*Her name was Sheila. Art Appreciation conflicted with Calculus, she chose it, I followed her there. She rebuffed my prom invitation nonetheless . I often wonder how my life would be different if I had continued in Calculus...

[Horton]

This concept of “point of indifference” may have originated from Bill Bernstein:

There are lots of other definitions of duration, some dizzyingly complex, but "point of indifference" is the simplest and most intuitive.

[Lee_WSP]

Actually, you’re only indifferent if you hold for ~2x duration. So, 30-40 years for LTPZ.

How can the “indifference period” exceed the maturity of the bond?

The maximum point of indifference is 2n-1. It’s just the mathematical proof. The actual point is going to vary on sequence of returns. It could be less, but cannot be more.

Assuming a constant rate increase each period, 2n-1 is the indifference point. I believe it even holds for exponential increases. But that’s getting a little bonkers.

I am also having trouble with the 2n -1 formulation; but I dropped out of calculus in the 12th grade, so this may be my problem.*

The current 30-year Treasury, with a yield/coupon of about 4.375%, provides a handy example of the conundrum. My trusty copy of Excel indicates that the Macaulay duration for such a bond is 17 years (16.98107, to be more precise). Under the 2n - 1 formulation, the point of indifference (not sure what that means) would come three years after maturity ... which I find bothersome and troubling.

Does the formula only apply to constantly rolling funds not bonds??? Hopefully someone with more math than me can clarify the application of the 2n - 1 formula. Lee, do you have a link to the mathematical proof you mentioned?

*Her name was Sheila. Art Appreciation conflicted with Calculus, she chose it, I followed her there. She rebuffed my prom invitation nonetheless . I often wonder how my life would be different if I had continued in Calculus...

Kevin M and numbercruncher are the guys with the math. viewtopic.php?p=6921761#p6921761

It’s the point of indifference for a rolling bond ladder with constantly raising interest rates.

The point of indifference according to the wiki of a single rate increase is year rate rise occurs + N

I’ve always been bothered by the rolling bonds of a fund. It seems like you’re exposed to constant SORR.

[retiringwhen]

Unless someone puts all their chips on the table at once to build a TIPS ladder, everyone will be rolling something onto their fixed income portfolio. I can't see how the difference between a duration matched fund portfolio and bond ladder is fundamentally different?

Full disclosure, I don't do LMP, but I do estimate my long-term liabilities as a way to get an azimuth check on my asset allocation as I move into retirement. In the rising interest rates of the past 18 mos, the portfolio has held up VERY well against my expected liabilities. I don't see an SoRR problem.

I am with McQ, I don't have the stomach to lump my portfolio at any time, even when the situation looks pretty good, like now for bonds.

I understand the basic math of the point of indifference, but I don't understand the consequences to me as an investor IF I understand how to match duration and my planned liabilities!

[Lee_WSP]

Unless someone puts all their chips on the table at once to build a TIPS ladder, everyone will be rolling something onto their fixed income portfolio. I can't see how the difference between a duration matched fund portfolio and bond ladder is fundamentally different?

Full disclosure, I don't do LMP, but I do estimate my long-term liabilities as a way to get an azimuth check on my asset allocation as I move into retirement. In the rising interest rates of the past 18 mos, the portfolio has held up VERY well against my expected liabilities. I don't see an SoRR problem.

I am with McQ, I don't have the stomach to lump my portfolio at any time, even when the situation looks pretty good, like now for bonds.

I understand the basic math of the point of indifference, but I don't understand the consequences to me as an investor IF I understand how to match duration and my planned liabilities!

A bond fund or a rolling ladder has a constant duration, so you are constantly exposed to the same interest rate risk at all times. A single bond or bond ladder has an expiration dates, so as time goes on, your duration shrinks.

[retiringwhen]

A single bond or bond ladder has an expiration dates, so as time goes on, your duration shrinks.

So, who buys enough bonds to last the rest of their life at one time?

Heck, Bill Bernstein has publicly stated he's still buying long-term bonds and he's further out on the life expectancy curve than me. Almost everyone is buying or selling over a longish period.

The real world, an investor's duration as measure by expected liabilities shrinks as they get older too, so they can sell their bond fund investments in appropriate portions to move the duration of their holdings in tandem. There is a reason duration matched portfolios have short and long-term components. They can also let money ride if they don't need the money, or add if needs change, etc.

BTW, I wish I had the funds and foresight in 2000 to start an I-bond portfolio, but my time machine is busted.

[You Know What I Mean]

*Her name was Sheila. Art Appreciation conflicted with Calculus, she chose it, I followed her there. She rebuffed my prom invitation nonetheless . I often wonder how my life would be different if I had continued in Calculus...
[/quote]
Perhaps you would have had a very successful career in academia. Oh, wait....

Seriously, thanks again for your forum contributions, especially in this thread and on Roth conversions (including the recent "Roth conversion before tax sunset in 2025").

I have been buying individual medium- and long-term TIPS since last year. I will probably buy more when a CD matures in November. (More difficult is the Roth conversion issue, considering the long payback time and the many uncertainties involved. I may or may not proceed with my plan to convert another $46K this year.)

[Lee_WSP]

A single bond or bond ladder has an expiration dates, so as time goes on, your duration shrinks.

So, who buys enough bonds to last the rest of their life at one time?

Heck, Bill Bernstein has publicly stated he's still buying long-term bonds and he's further out on the life expectancy curve than me. Almost everyone is buying or selling over a longish period.

The real world, an investor's duration as measure by expected liabilities shrinks as they get older too, so they can sell their bond fund investments in appropriate portions to move the duration of their holdings in tandem. There is a reason duration matched portfolios have short and long-term components. They can also let money ride if they don't need the money, or add if needs change, etc.

BTW, I wish I had the funds and foresight in 2000 to start an I-bond portfolio, but my time machine is busted.

Right, so you need to decide how much interest rate risk you want to take on. If you’re risk averse, you buy the short term bond fund. If you’re a risk taker, get the long bonds.

[McQ]

...

Seriously, thanks again for your forum contributions, especially in this thread and on Roth conversions (including the recent "Roth conversion before tax sunset in 2025").

I have been buying individual medium- and long-term TIPS since last year. I will probably buy more when a CD matures in November. (More difficult is the Roth conversion issue, considering the long payback time and the many uncertainties involved. I may or may not proceed with my plan to convert another $46K this year.)

Thanks for those kind words! And I agree, the decision to go out the duration curve on TIPS here in Fall 2023 is quite a bit easier than whether to Roth-convert when in the middle tax brackets.

The more I think about the latter, the more skeptical of the conversion payoff I become ... at least in my own case.

But long TIPS over 2.125% ... as a distinguished gentleman of my acquaintance recently remarked, "Whee!!"

[GAAP]

Unless someone puts all their chips on the table at once to build a TIPS ladder, everyone will be rolling something onto their fixed income portfolio. I can't see how the difference between a duration matched fund portfolio and bond ladder is fundamentally different?

Full disclosure, I don't do LMP, but I do estimate my long-term liabilities as a way to get an azimuth check on my asset allocation as I move into retirement. In the rising interest rates of the past 18 mos, the portfolio has held up VERY well against my expected liabilities. I don't see an SoRR problem.

I am with McQ, I don't have the stomach to lump my portfolio at any time, even when the situation looks pretty good, like now for bonds.

I understand the basic math of the point of indifference, but I don't understand the consequences to me as an investor IF I understand how to match duration and my planned liabilities!

A bond fund or a rolling ladder has a constant duration, so you are constantly exposed to the same interest rate risk at all times. A single bond or bond ladder has an expiration dates, so as time goes on, your duration shrinks.

Generally, if you're attempting to match duration with liabilities by using bond funds, you will need at least two different funds with different durations. The exception would be if the duration that you are attempting to match exceeds the duration available in the funds -- and you're stuck with an approximation that is shorter than desired.

[GAAP]

Benchmark for evaluating the TIPS market timing efforts attempted in this thread

So, I’ve taken a step onto the Dark Side here in this thread, alleging that it is possible to time bond market purchases, more especially TIPS purchases.

… even as I fully agree, with all card-carrying Bogleheads, that “two-way” market timing for stocks/cash is entirely ineffective. I have satisfied myself that I cannot time the stock market effectively, as I alas attempted (several times) in my youth.

But timing TIPS purchases… the question is open. Or so it seems to me.

No one should take my word for it—that I timed my TIPS purchases effectively. C’mon, you are all adults. People try to bamboozle you all the time. How would you (I) know that I have succeeded in my market timing effort? Or how well?

Even though these LTPZ purchases are not complete, it is not premature to ask, What should be the benchmark? How could I (or any reader) tell if I delivered on my project to effectively time a quite large purchase of TIPS, $400,000 in notional terms, 40% of my portfolio?

Are you looking for a benchmark that is specific to your situation, or one that could be more generically applied overall?

The first sounds reasonably practical -- but has the disadvantage that it can't tell you whether you were smart or just lucky.

The second sounds like a whole lot more work would be needed to fully define the strategy.

[Lee_WSP]

Unless someone puts all their chips on the table at once to build a TIPS ladder, everyone will be rolling something onto their fixed income portfolio. I can't see how the difference between a duration matched fund portfolio and bond ladder is fundamentally different?

Full disclosure, I don't do LMP, but I do estimate my long-term liabilities as a way to get an azimuth check on my asset allocation as I move into retirement. In the rising interest rates of the past 18 mos, the portfolio has held up VERY well against my expected liabilities. I don't see an SoRR problem.

I am with McQ, I don't have the stomach to lump my portfolio at any time, even when the situation looks pretty good, like now for bonds.

I understand the basic math of the point of indifference, but I don't understand the consequences to me as an investor IF I understand how to match duration and my planned liabilities!

A bond fund or a rolling ladder has a constant duration, so you are constantly exposed to the same interest rate risk at all times. A single bond or bond ladder has an expiration dates, so as time goes on, your duration shrinks.

Generally, if you're attempting to match duration with liabilities by using bond funds, you will need at least two different funds with different durations. The exception would be if the duration that you are attempting to match exceeds the duration available in the funds -- and you're stuck with an approximation that is shorter than desired.

I was never a fan of that philosophy and that’s just another reason I can’t ascribe to it.

[exodusing]

A single bond or bond ladder has an expiration dates, so as time goes on, your duration shrinks.

So, who buys enough bonds to last the rest of their life at one time?

I have a TIPS ladder to age 95 that I bought over a few days.

[retiringwhen]

A single bond or bond ladder has an expiration dates, so as time goes on, your duration shrinks.

So, who buys enough bonds to last the rest of their life at one time?

I have a TIPS ladder to age 95 that I bought over a few days.

Does it equal 100% of your fixed income?

[exodusing]

A single bond or bond ladder has an expiration dates, so as time goes on, your duration shrinks.

So, who buys enough bonds to last the rest of their life at one time?

I have a TIPS ladder to age 95 that I bought over a few days.

Does it equal 100% of your fixed income?

No.

[McQ]

Benchmark for evaluating the TIPS market timing efforts attempted in this thread

So, I’ve taken a step onto the Dark Side here in this thread, alleging that it is possible to time bond market purchases, more especially TIPS purchases.

… even as I fully agree, with all card-carrying Bogleheads, that “two-way” market timing for stocks/cash is entirely ineffective. I have satisfied myself that I cannot time the stock market effectively, as I alas attempted (several times) in my youth.

But timing TIPS purchases… the question is open. Or so it seems to me.

No one should take my word for it—that I timed my TIPS purchases effectively. C’mon, you are all adults. People try to bamboozle you all the time. How would you (I) know that I have succeeded in my market timing effort? Or how well?

Even though these LTPZ purchases are not complete, it is not premature to ask, What should be the benchmark? How could I (or any reader) tell if I delivered on my project to effectively time a quite large purchase of TIPS, $400,000 in notional terms, 40% of my portfolio?

Are you looking for a benchmark that is specific to your situation, or one that could be more generically applied overall?

The first sounds reasonably practical -- but has the disadvantage that it can't tell you whether you were smart or just lucky.

The second sounds like a whole lot more work would be needed to fully define the strategy.

Neither approach can reject "lucky," especially since this is a one time effort. Dozens of fund managers beat the market every year; but it's mostly random. Any one-time beat by me in the TIPS space can never have any theoretical import.

So a specific locally appropriate alternative--mechanical purchase timing in the same amount over roughly the same interval--summarizes my thinking about the appropriate benchmark.

The goal here is not to prove anything, but to maintain intellectual honesty; not to fool myself, or anybody else, about how well my market timing effort worked out.

Imagine several possible outcomes of the "test against benchmark."

1. I win, but by a de minimis amount--say, I'm $5,000 better off on the $400,000, relative to the mechanical investment program. Whoopee-do. Distinctly unimpressive. Or, it's $3,000, and only on some mechanical schedules, not other good faith efforts. Fail.

2. I win, by a substantial amount, say $40,000 improvement on the timed investment of $400,000 relative to a mechanical schedule. I'll feel pretty good--$40,000 is real money in this notional world of mine. Any more, and I'd start to preen. You call it random, baby, I call it money in pocket.

Probably, the outcome will fall somewhere in between, with the interpretation I write and share with the forum depending on just where the outcome falls.

It will be what it will be.

[bog007]

Que Sera, Sera

[McQ]

A small purchase today of LTPZ, 150 shares, at just under 55.00. Because:

1. a yield of 2 1/8% real on the 2040s, locked in for decades, ain't bad;

2. My market timing procedure calls for renewed purchases, even though not at a new low, if the price seems "good," and I have been waiting long enough for a bounce to fade (last purchase 54.79, feels like weeks ago)

3. But only 150 shares, because I think long nominal bonds, which are hovering near their October 2022 lows, are gonna break, sooner or later. A current 10-year nominal yield of 4.3%, with trailing inflation at 3.7%, and the 97-year record of inflation, the best historical data for future projections, averaging 3.0%? Not for long.

I'll be ready if long TIPS yields move above 2.25% ...

[nedsaid]

[as I wait for another opportunity to buy on the dips]

Benchmark for evaluating the TIPS market timing efforts attempted in this thread

So, I’ve taken a step onto the Dark Side here in this thread, alleging that it is possible to time bond market purchases, more especially TIPS purchases.

… even as I fully agree, with all card-carrying Bogleheads, that “two-way” market timing for stocks/cash is entirely ineffective. I have satisfied myself that I cannot time the stock market effectively, as I alas attempted (several times) in my youth.

But timing TIPS purchases… the question is open. Or so it seems to me.

No one should take my word for it—that I timed my TIPS purchases effectively. C’mon, you are all adults. People try to bamboozle you all the time. How would you (I) know that I have succeeded in my market timing effort? Or how well?

Even though these LTPZ purchases are not complete, it is not premature to ask, What should be the benchmark? How could I (or any reader) tell if I delivered on my project to effectively time a quite large purchase of TIPS, $400,000 in notional terms, 40% of my portfolio?

Benchmark alternative #1

Go all in during October 2022, the whole $400,000, purchased that first day long TIPS (=2046, +/-) touched a real yield of 2.00%.

Rejected.

This is truly market timing: waiting for an arbitrary benchmark to be reached, and shoving all the chips across the table in one large purchase. Shudder.

Market timing cannot be the benchmark for market timing.

Benchmark alternative #2

An entire family of alternatives take the form of mechanical periodic purchases. For instance:
Invest $20,000 per month on the first of the month, beginning after the date when long TIPS began to yield at least X.

This procedure, executed over 20 months, would duplicate the $400,000 purchases I have planned and have been market timing, as reported in this thread (I have just another $120,000 to go!).

Issues

When do the mechanical purchases start? If they begin only at yields of 2.0%, that’s still market timing in its own right, same as what I’ve been doing.

If they have been ongoing since the first auction of TIPS in 1997 … that’s not very on point.

Possible solution: assume the investor had, somewhat recently, aged to the point that long TIPS had become attractive in concept—but only at a positive yield. If the goal is to maintain real wealth, then negative yields are an argument NOT to buy TIPS, as negative yields insure frustration of that goal.

On this reasoning—I need me some TIPS, but only at a real yield of zero or higher--the first mechanical purchase would then occur on the 1st of the month following the day when long TIPS began to yield more than zero percent real (about spring 2022). Waiting to buy until later, as I did, is part of the market timing to be investigated against this foil.

When do these mechanical purchases end? If they end exactly when the market timed purchases end … that’s still market timing, and not a fit benchmark.

Don’t have a good answer here. One possibility is to set a reasonable time span as an umbrella, and then divide the $400,000 by that number of months. I believe I will have completed all my cleverly (?) timed purchases by 18 months (April 2024). That’s about 24 months after long TIPS yields first recovered to above zero. I’d accept 24 months of mechanical purchases from mid-2022 as the benchmark for my lumpy, hopefully well-timed, entirely fallible attempt at timing the pace and amount of LTPZ purchases.

In short, a benchmark I could accept would show mechanical purchases each month of $400,000 / 24 months, the purchases made into LTPZ. That strategy would produce wealth of Z at the 24-month evaluation point, to be compared to whatever my brokerage account shows for my timed purchases.

I look forward to reporting how well I did (or didn’t) do.

Other possible benchmarks? Let your creativity rip.

Criticisms of my reasoning with respect to an appropriate benchmark for my market timing efforts?
I need to hear.

There are a lot worse things in life than being called a market timer. Let's call it Bond Pricing and Bond Yield Opportunism. Problem fixed. To me, it is clear that there are better times to buy assets than at others; it is also clear that valuations matter in securities markets. It is rational to buy things when they are cheap rather than when they are expensive, yet this is a concept that many Bogleheads cannot grasp.

If I see that somebody has marked down good toilet paper by 50%, I will swoop in and buy cheap, I won't argue about the efficiency of toilet paper markets, I will happily accept a bargain. That my friend is what you are doing with TIPS. It is rational to buy TIPS when they have positive real yields rather than when their real yields are negative. The critics will say, "McQ that is market
timing!" My answer is darned tootin' that is market timing, I believe in bargain purchases. So should you.

So buy TIPS when they are cheap, you don't need fellow Bogleheads to give you approval to do so. No need for guilt, you are doing what rational people should do. So let's get this straight, you are a Bond Pricing and Bond Yield Opportunist and not a market
timer. A better way of saying it is that you are looking for bargains in the securities markets. If the guilt is getting to you, my advice is not to start any more of these TIPS threads. At the very least, don't announce to the world what you are doing. The Doctor is in, 5 cents please.

The problem is Professor McQ is that you need to hire a good spin expert. Just reframe what you are doing, give it a different name, and the problem is solved. No market timing here, just Bond Pricing and Bond Yield Opportunism. No need for Boglehead guilt, just spin it away.

If you are feeling guilty and don't know what to do,
Just hire a spin Doctor and your guilt is all through,
I say just spin it, just spin it away,
You will feel happy and the spin will pay.

[nedsaid]

A small purchase today of LTPZ, 150 shares, at just under 55.00. Because:

1. a yield of 2 1/8% real on the 2040s, locked in for decades, ain't bad;

2. My market timing procedure calls for renewed purchases, even though not at a new low, if the price seems "good," and I have been waiting long enough for a bounce to fade (last purchase 54.79, feels like weeks ago)

3. But only 150 shares, because I think long nominal bonds, which are hovering near their October 2022 lows, are gonna break, sooner or later. A current 10-year nominal yield of 4.3%, with trailing inflation at 3.7%, and the 97-year record of inflation, the best historical data for future projections, averaging 3.0%? Not for long.

I'll be ready if long TIPS yields move above 2.25% ...

Oh man, I have seen the good Professor McQ go from Boglehead Orthodoxy to a heterodox position and perhaps downright heresy. First he admits to market timing and then does something even worse, that is admitting to "dry powder." The Orthodoxy insists that market timing is wrong and that investors should always be fully invested. The next thing the good professor will say is that markets aren't always efficient.

McQ has admitted to departures from accepted Boglehead wisdom in his thoughts and now in his actions. The thing is that many of us think and do the very same things. I am "shaming" the good Professor in jest as I have been the target of good old Boglehead shaming and guilt myself. Despite the conventional wisdom here on the forum, we all love a bargain. I know that I do.

[Hola]

A small purchase today of LTPZ, 150 shares, at just under 55.00. Because:

1. a yield of 2 1/8% real on the 2040s, locked in for decades, ain't bad;

2. My market timing procedure calls for renewed purchases, even though not at a new low, if the price seems "good," and I have been waiting long enough for a bounce to fade (last purchase 54.79, feels like weeks ago)

3. But only 150 shares, because I think long nominal bonds, which are hovering near their October 2022 lows, are gonna break, sooner or later. A current 10-year nominal yield of 4.3%, with trailing inflation at 3.7%, and the 97-year record of inflation, the best historical data for future projections, averaging 3.0%? Not for long.

I'll be ready if long TIPS yields move above 2.25% ...

How? Today is Saturday.

[Hola]

A small purchase today of LTPZ, 150 shares, at just under 55.00. Because:

1. a yield of 2 1/8% real on the 2040s, locked in for decades, ain't bad;

2. My market timing procedure calls for renewed purchases, even though not at a new low, if the price seems "good," and I have been waiting long enough for a bounce to fade (last purchase 54.79, feels like weeks ago)

3. But only 150 shares, because I think long nominal bonds, which are hovering near their October 2022 lows, are gonna break, sooner or later. A current 10-year nominal yield of 4.3%, with trailing inflation at 3.7%, and the 97-year record of inflation, the best historical data for future projections, averaging 3.0%? Not for long.

I'll be ready if long TIPS yields move above 2.25% ...

Oh man, I have seen the good Professor McQ go from Boglehead Orthodoxy to a heterodox position and perhaps downright heresy. First he admits to market timing and then does something even worse, that is admitting to "dry powder." The Orthodoxy insists that market timing is wrong and that investors should always be fully invested. The next thing the good professor will say is that markets aren't always efficient.

McQ has admitted to departures from accepted Boglehead wisdom in his thoughts and now in his actions. The thing is that many of us think and do the very same things. I am "shaming" the good Professor in jest as I have been the target of good old Boglehead shaming and guilt myself. Despite the conventional wisdom here on the forum, we all love a bargain. I know that I do.

I have an order to purchase 1600 LTPZ at $54.

[2pedals]

I have enjoyed reading this thread. The real yields have been hovering above 2% for most (if not all) durations. It seemed like a good idea to sell my stable value funds and purchase more TIPS, beyond my planned LMP to fund my spending years between now and when I decide to take social security at age 70. So I rolled over my entire 401k account into Fidelity and have now about 70% of my bonds mostly in intermediate TIP funds. Who knows I might increase it to about 90%. I haven't purchased LTPZ yet. I am thinking about purchasing some LTPZ or longer-duration bonds but haven't done so. I am not convinced longer duration bonds (7+ years) are something I want much of at this point.

Although it was a good exercise to know how much I might want between now and SS, I might just eliminate my LMP planning spreadsheet. It doesn't seem like an LMP is necessary at this point and is mostly a mental accounting trick since I have no idea what duration I should plan for the bonds beyond age 70. Each year I live my expected duration increases and I may want to harvest good stock market returns as well.

[nedsaid]

A small purchase today of LTPZ, 150 shares, at just under 55.00. Because:

1. a yield of 2 1/8% real on the 2040s, locked in for decades, ain't bad;

2. My market timing procedure calls for renewed purchases, even though not at a new low, if the price seems "good," and I have been waiting long enough for a bounce to fade (last purchase 54.79, feels like weeks ago)

3. But only 150 shares, because I think long nominal bonds, which are hovering near their October 2022 lows, are gonna break, sooner or later. A current 10-year nominal yield of 4.3%, with trailing inflation at 3.7%, and the 97-year record of inflation, the best historical data for future projections, averaging 3.0%? Not for long.

I'll be ready if long TIPS yields move above 2.25% ...

Oh man, I have seen the good Professor McQ go from Boglehead Orthodoxy to a heterodox position and perhaps downright heresy. First he admits to market timing and then does something even worse, that is admitting to "dry powder." The Orthodoxy insists that market timing is wrong and that investors should always be fully invested. The next thing the good professor will say is that markets aren't always efficient.

McQ has admitted to departures from accepted Boglehead wisdom in his thoughts and now in his actions. The thing is that many of us think and do the very same things. I am "shaming" the good Professor in jest as I have been the target of good old Boglehead shaming and guilt myself. Despite the conventional wisdom here on the forum, we all love a bargain. I know that I do.

I have an order to purchase 1600 LTPZ at $54.

Of course I have been joking. I always value Professor McQ's opinions and I have learned much from him. He is simply buying TIPS when they are attractive, we all love bargains. Two percent real yields on TIPS are pretty hard to ignore.

What I am struggling with is the volatility of longer term TIPS, I do own some Pimco 15+ Year US TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ). I rolled over a Cash Balance Pension and did a duration matching strategy with those funds in order to preserve the option
of annuitizing the rollover later on. I probably should do this with the rest of my TIPS but I see how darned volatile LTPZ
is.

To lock in those 2% plus real yields and to replicate a TIPs ladder with TIPs ETFs means buying a lot of LTPZ. Not sure I want all that volatility with the fixed income portion of my portfolio. I have looked at what Dimensional Fund Advisors does with their Target Date Retirement funds, about 2/3 of their 2025 fund is in TIPS with a duration of about 13 or 14. If my portfolio was much larger than what I have now, it would look similar to the DFA 2025 fund. I have a bit higher allocation to stocks than what many 2025 funds recommend but I want a bit more growth from the portfolio.

[McQ]

A small purchase today of LTPZ, 150 shares, at just under 55.00. Because:

1. a yield of 2 1/8% real on the 2040s, locked in for decades, ain't bad;

2. My market timing procedure calls for renewed purchases, even though not at a new low, if the price seems "good," and I have been waiting long enough for a bounce to fade (last purchase 54.79, feels like weeks ago)

3. But only 150 shares, because I think long nominal bonds, which are hovering near their October 2022 lows, are gonna break, sooner or later. A current 10-year nominal yield of 4.3%, with trailing inflation at 3.7%, and the 97-year record of inflation, the best historical data for future projections, averaging 3.0%? Not for long.

I'll be ready if long TIPS yields move above 2.25% ...

Oh man, I have seen the good Professor McQ go from Boglehead Orthodoxy to a heterodox position and perhaps downright heresy. First he admits to market timing and then does something even worse, that is admitting to "dry powder." The Orthodoxy insists that market timing is wrong and that investors should always be fully invested. The next thing the good professor will say is that markets aren't always efficient.

McQ has admitted to departures from accepted Boglehead wisdom in his thoughts and now in his actions. The thing is that many of us think and do the very same things. I am "shaming" the good Professor in jest as I have been the target of good old Boglehead shaming and guilt myself. Despite the conventional wisdom here on the forum, we all love a bargain. I know that I do.

Enjoyed it as always, nedsaid. Alas, it is too late for spin. A few pages upthread I posted: "My name is McQ. I am a market-timer." No going back.

Some raillery followed ...

[McQ]

A small purchase today of LTPZ, 150 shares, at just under 55.00. Because:

1. a yield of 2 1/8% real on the 2040s, locked in for decades, ain't bad;

2. My market timing procedure calls for renewed purchases, even though not at a new low, if the price seems "good," and I have been waiting long enough for a bounce to fade (last purchase 54.79, feels like weeks ago)

3. But only 150 shares, because I think long nominal bonds, which are hovering near their October 2022 lows, are gonna break, sooner or later. A current 10-year nominal yield of 4.3%, with trailing inflation at 3.7%, and the 97-year record of inflation, the best historical data for future projections, averaging 3.0%? Not for long.

I'll be ready if long TIPS yields move above 2.25% ...

How? Today is Saturday.

Time stamp on my post out here on the west coast is 8:00 pm Friday. Although I'm not really paranoid that the SEC is monitoring l'il ole me for attempts at market manipulation (in my home field that's called "ideas of reference"), as a matter of regulatory hygiene I generally do not post my buying decisions until after the market closes.

Can't be too careful. Only a matter of time before the SEC deploys an army of AI to sift through social media posts ...

[McQ]

...
I have an order to purchase 1600 LTPZ at $54.

I admire your intestinal fortitude! In a few years, I don't think you will regret that $84,000 purchase.

I'll be buying $20-30K at 54 on LTPZ (or close), and I'll do it again the following week if that price sticks.

2.25% real for decades, full faith and credit of the world hegemon ... be still my heart.

[RationalWalk]

Yesterday, I couldn't spell "Treasiry Inflattin Protekted CeeKurity" and today I own sum...

[Prokofiev]

A single bond or bond ladder has an expiration dates, so as time goes on, your duration shrinks.

So, who buys enough bonds to last the rest of their life at one time?

I have a TIPS ladder to age 95 that I bought over a few days.

Right. But you are 94.

[abc132]

25x expenses at 1.3% real will provide 30 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 2.0% real will provide 34 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 3.0% real will provide 44 years of expenses.

The primary purpose of TIPS is to secure a portfolio. I'm not willing to lock up 25x expenses to get 30 years of spending so I'm out at 1.3% real. Things are a bit better at 2% real but for me locking in a high percentage of fixed income is too much loss in expected value for anything less than a 50x portfolio.

By 3% real TIPS you can lock in returns and still get expected portfolio growth at a total portfolio size of 25-35x expenses (stocks + TIPS). At 3% real TIPS now serve a secondary function of increasing your safe percentage of spending. I'll buy TIPS when I can spend more than 4% of my portfolio with TIPS while not sacrificing potential growth. They interest me at >50x expenses or closer to 3% real.

[exodusing]

A single bond or bond ladder has an expiration dates, so as time goes on, your duration shrinks.

So, who buys enough bonds to last the rest of their life at one time?

I have a TIPS ladder to age 95 that I bought over a few days.

Right. But you are 94.

??? I thought I was in my 60s.

[RationalWalk]

What happens when you are 96?

[McQ]

25x expenses at 1.3% real will provide 30 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 2.0% real will provide 34 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 3.0% real will provide 44 years of expenses.

The primary purpose of TIPS is to secure a portfolio. I'm not willing to lock up 25x expenses to get 30 years of spending so I'm out at 1.3% real. Things are a bit better at 2% real but for me locking in a high percentage of fixed income is too much loss in expected value for anything less than a 50x portfolio.

By 3% real TIPS you can lock in returns and still get expected portfolio growth at a total portfolio size of 25-35x expenses (stocks + TIPS). At 3% real TIPS now serve a secondary function of increasing your safe percentage of spending. I'll buy TIPS when I can spend more than 4% of my portfolio with TIPS while not sacrificing potential growth. They interest me at >50x expenses or closer to 3% real.

I don't challenge your reasoning or its appropriateness to your goals. But I predict we won't see 3.0% on this cycle, and even if we do, it will be gone in the blink of an eye, and you will not be able to implement the plan unless you monitor TIPS prices hourly and have the entire sum liquid at hand, brokerage window open, ready to go.

In my case, I don't have the guts to go all in like that, plus, in the event, I'd get hung up on whether I should hold out some funds in case we see 3.25% or 3.50% ...

That's why I buy in bits and pieces once thresholds are approached. I'm certain of getting some large amount of this very attractive asset at a good price.

[retiringwhen]

That's why I buy in bits and pieces once thresholds are approached. I'm certain of getting some large amount of this very attractive asset at a good price.

In the immortal words of Cliff Aness, you are going to just Sin A Little

[JohnDoh]

25x expenses at 1.3% real will provide 30 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 2.0% real will provide 34 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 3.0% real will provide 44 years of expenses.

The primary purpose of TIPS is to secure a portfolio. I'm not willing to lock up 25x expenses to get 30 years of spending so I'm out at 1.3% real. Things are a bit better at 2% real but for me locking in a high percentage of fixed income is too much loss in expected value for anything less than a 50x portfolio.

By 3% real TIPS you can lock in returns and still get expected portfolio growth at a total portfolio size of 25-35x expenses (stocks + TIPS). At 3% real TIPS now serve a secondary function of increasing your safe percentage of spending. I'll buy TIPS when I can spend more than 4% of my portfolio with TIPS while not sacrificing potential growth. They interest me at >50x expenses or closer to 3% real.

I don't challenge your reasoning or its appropriateness to your goals. But I predict we won't see 3.0% on this cycle, and even if we do, it will be gone in the blink of an eye, and you will not be able to implement the plan unless you monitor TIPS prices hourly and have the entire sum liquid at hand, brokerage window open, ready to go.

In my case, I don't have the guts to go all in like that, plus, in the event, I'd get hung up on whether I should hold out some funds in case we see 3.25% or 3.50% ...

That's why I buy in bits and pieces once thresholds are approached. I'm certain of getting some large amount of this very attractive asset at a good price.

I’ll (gently) challenge the reasoning here. As I understand it, at 1.3% real you view TIPS as insurance while at 3% real you view TIPS as an investment. You don’t like (this) insurance but you do like a (good) investment.

But TIPS aren’t either/or. They’re both! (Kinda like SNL’s “Shimmer”: it’s both a floor wax AND a desert topping!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPO8PqHGWFU)

Assuming “expenses” means the amount to lead a basic, decent life but that one could keep body and soul together at E / 2, then something like the following makes sense to me:

25 x 1/2(E) at anything 1%+
25x E at anything around 2%+
100% assets at 3%+

You don’t not-insure an expensive house because the insurance is expensive.
You don’t refuse the bird in the hand for the possibility of one in the bush.

[abc132]

That's why I buy in bits and pieces once thresholds are approached. I'm certain of getting some large amount of this very attractive asset at a good price.

In the immortal words of Cliff Aness, you are going to just Sin A Little

I prefer the Breaking Bad version. "If you're going to buy me off, ..., buy me off".

[abc132]

25x expenses at 1.3% real will provide 30 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 2.0% real will provide 34 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 3.0% real will provide 44 years of expenses.

The primary purpose of TIPS is to secure a portfolio. I'm not willing to lock up 25x expenses to get 30 years of spending so I'm out at 1.3% real. Things are a bit better at 2% real but for me locking in a high percentage of fixed income is too much loss in expected value for anything less than a 50x portfolio.

By 3% real TIPS you can lock in returns and still get expected portfolio growth at a total portfolio size of 25-35x expenses (stocks + TIPS). At 3% real TIPS now serve a secondary function of increasing your safe percentage of spending. I'll buy TIPS when I can spend more than 4% of my portfolio with TIPS while not sacrificing potential growth. They interest me at >50x expenses or closer to 3% real.

I don't challenge your reasoning or its appropriateness to your goals. But I predict we won't see 3.0% on this cycle, and even if we do, it will be gone in the blink of an eye, and you will not be able to implement the plan unless you monitor TIPS prices hourly and have the entire sum liquid at hand, brokerage window open, ready to go.

In my case, I don't have the guts to go all in like that, plus, in the event, I'd get hung up on whether I should hold out some funds in case we see 3.25% or 3.50% ...

That's why I buy in bits and pieces once thresholds are approached. I'm certain of getting some large amount of this very attractive asset at a good price.

I’ll (gently) challenge the reasoning here. As I understand it, at 1.3% real you view TIPS as insurance while at 3% real you view TIPS as an investment. You don’t like (this) insurance but you do like a (good) investment.

But TIPS aren’t either/or. They’re both! (Kinda like SNL’s “Shimmer”: it’s both a floor wax AND a desert topping!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPO8PqHGWFU)

Assuming “expenses” means the amount to lead a basic, decent life but that one could keep body and soul together at E / 2, then something like the following makes sense to me:

25 x 1/2(E) at anything 1%+
25x E at anything around 2%+
100% assets at 3%+

You don’t not-insure an expensive house because the insurance is expensive.
You don’t refuse the bird in the hand for the possibility of one in the bush.

Investing is about trade-offs.

With 40 years spending/investing timeline and 40x minimum expenses I simply can't secure a portfolio with 1.3% TIPS without giving up every bit of growth. I'd like to be able to spend quite a bit more than my minimum expenses. Buying 10 years of TIPS does nothing for that goal as the portfolio risk is still all on the stock side --> 10 years of TIPS reduces the expected performance without guaranteeing anything more. My portfolio is currently 80/20. I am still working with early retirement in mind. I can work longer if stock risk shows up in the short term.

At 3% real I could put 20 years of expenses into TIPS and have 20 years of expenses still in the market. That actually meets my goals of minimum expenses while having enough growth potential.

The correct investing choice depends on portfolio size and goals.
The correct investing choice depends on multiple parameters.

A goal of securing a portfolio without considering the trade-offs is one-dimensional and not an optimal way to make decisions.

At some value of TIPS and portfolio size the decision makes sense. That's at 3% for my portfolio size and my goals. I'll take the 50/50 starting portfolio over the 80/20 starting portfolio if it guarantees the spending floor. That's the trade off that makes sense for me.

[#Cruncher]

25x expenses at 1.3% real will provide 30 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 2.0% real will provide 34 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 3.0% real will provide 44 years of expenses.

To be picky, I get slightly longer periods for 2% and 3%. Here are my calculations using both the NPER function and the LN function to solve the Present Value of an Annuity formula for "n". [*]

Code: Select all

 30.4 = NPER(1.3%, 1, -25, 0, 0) = -LN(1 - 0.013 * 25) / LN(1.013)
 35.0 = NPER(2%,   1, -25, 0, 0) = -LN(1 - 0.02  * 25) / LN(1.02)
 46.9 = NPER(3%,   1, -25, 0, 0) = -LN(1 - 0.03  * 25) / LN(1.03)

* Here's the formula from Finance Formulas which works as long as "r" isn't zero.

[abc132]

25x expenses at 1.3% real will provide 30 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 2.0% real will provide 34 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 3.0% real will provide 44 years of expenses.

To be picky, I get slightly longer periods for 2% and 3%. Here are my calculations using both the NPER function and the LN function to solve the Present Value of an Annuity formula for "n". [*]

Code: Select all

 30.4 = NPER(1.3%, 1, -25, 0, 0) = -LN(1 - 0.013 * 25) / LN(1.013)
 35.0 = NPER(2%,   1, -25, 0, 0) = -LN(1 - 0.02  * 25) / LN(1.02)
 46.9 = NPER(3%,   1, -25, 0, 0) = -LN(1 - 0.03  * 25) / LN(1.03)

* Here's the formula from Finance Formulas which works as long as "r" isn't zero.

I withdrew one year of money at the beginning of each year and then compounded the remaining amount by 3% for the remaining portfolio for my values. That gives me 44 years instead of the almost 47 years I do get by living off of nothing each year and withdrawing one year of income at the end of each year.

How are you living the first year without withdrawing any money?

I think you want =1+NPER(3%, 1, -24, 0, 0) for the 24x portfolio that is left, earns 3%, and withdraws another 1x the end of the year.

This will match my numbers.

[nedsaid]

A small purchase today of LTPZ, 150 shares, at just under 55.00. Because:

1. a yield of 2 1/8% real on the 2040s, locked in for decades, ain't bad;

2. My market timing procedure calls for renewed purchases, even though not at a new low, if the price seems "good," and I have been waiting long enough for a bounce to fade (last purchase 54.79, feels like weeks ago)

3. But only 150 shares, because I think long nominal bonds, which are hovering near their October 2022 lows, are gonna break, sooner or later. A current 10-year nominal yield of 4.3%, with trailing inflation at 3.7%, and the 97-year record of inflation, the best historical data for future projections, averaging 3.0%? Not for long.

I'll be ready if long TIPS yields move above 2.25% ...

Oh man, I have seen the good Professor McQ go from Boglehead Orthodoxy to a heterodox position and perhaps downright heresy. First he admits to market timing and then does something even worse, that is admitting to "dry powder." The Orthodoxy insists that market timing is wrong and that investors should always be fully invested. The next thing the good professor will say is that markets aren't always efficient.

McQ has admitted to departures from accepted Boglehead wisdom in his thoughts and now in his actions. The thing is that many of us think and do the very same things. I am "shaming" the good Professor in jest as I have been the target of good old Boglehead shaming and guilt myself. Despite the conventional wisdom here on the forum, we all love a bargain. I know that I do.

Enjoyed it as always, nedsaid. Alas, it is too late for spin. A few pages upthread I posted: "My name is McQ. I am a market-timer." No going back.

Some raillery followed ...

I think we are in dire need of a support group. I don't know, Market Timer Anonymous? Some sort of 12 step plan?

We are in good company. Bill Bernstein, Allan Roth, and Bobcat2 love it now that TIPS are becoming very attractive here. Nedsaid loves a good bargain as does McQ, even the Boglemeister himself.

Anyhow, I am glad you got a good laugh out of it.

[#Cruncher]

25x expenses at 1.3% real will provide 30 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 2.0% real will provide 34 years of expenses.
25x expenses at 3.0% real will provide 44 years of expenses.

To be picky, I get slightly longer periods for 2% and 3%. ...

I withdrew one year of money at the beginning of each year ...
I think you want =1+NPER(3%, 1, -24, 0, 0) for the 24x portfolio that is left, earns 3%, and withdraws another 1x the end of the year. This will match my numbers.

Yes, your numbers are correct for withdrawals at the start of each year -- rather than at the end. I could have saved cluttering the thread with three unneeded posts if I'd realized that's what you were doing. (I was confused because, when rounded to the nearest whole number, the answer is 30 years both ways with a 1.3% rate. It's only with 2% or 3% rates that the whole number of years differ.)

Here are my calculations for withdrawals at the start of the year. (Changing the 5th parameter from "0" to "1" tells NPER to do that.) The results match yours.

Code: Select all

 30.0 = NPER(1.3%, 1, -25, 0, 1) = -LN(1 + 0.013 * (1 - 25)) / LN(1.013) + 1
 34.0 = NPER(2%,   1, -25, 0, 1) = -LN(1 + 0.02  * (1 - 25)) / LN(1.02)  + 1
 44.1 = NPER(3%,   1, -25, 0, 1) = -LN(1 + 0.03  * (1 - 25)) / LN(1.03)  + 1

[Dave5280]

Has anyone seen an actual account balance and interest payments over at least a few years? I’ve seen the formula expressed, but balance totals and interest would be a big help. Thanks.

[exodusing]

What happens when you are 96?

If you're asking me, I'd use other parts of my portfolio.

A 30 year TIPS ladder will currently allow a 4.45% withdrawal rate. This means you can set up a 4% guaranteed inflation adjusted withdrawal rate and have more than 10% of your portfolio left over to invest in stocks or whatever. If growth rates contemplated by the 4% "rule" come to pass, you'll have more than enough for years to come.

https://www.tipsladder.com/build?income ... =BestYield

[Wrench]

What happens when you are 96?

If you're asking me, I'd use other parts of my portfolio.

A 30 year TIPS ladder will currently allow a 4.45% withdrawal rate. This means you can set up a 4% guaranteed inflation adjusted withdrawal rate and have more than 10% of your portfolio left over to invest in stocks or whatever. If growth rates contemplated by the 4% "rule" come to pass, you'll have more than enough for years to come.

https://www.tipsladder.com/build?income ... =BestYield

This same question could be asked of ANY withdrawal method - the "standard" 4% Bengen withdrawal method only "works" for 30 years in the worst case. The question each of us needs to ask is: what is our retirement planning window, i.e. how long do I (or we if including a spouse) expect to live? Although that question is specifically unanswerable, it is quite easy to set some probabilities for various lifetime projections. For example, see:
https://www.longevityillustrator.org/
So, all one need to do is decide what probability one wants to plan for. For example, for a 69 yo male in average health and 68 yo female in excellent health, there is a 45% probability either will be alive in 25 years, 19% in 30 years, 6% in 35 years and 1% in 40 years. Based upon one's own risk tolerance for failure, pick the probability and corresponding years that you are most comfortable with. Personally, I would choose something in the single digits, but that's just me. So in this example 6% or 35 years. But, someone else might be comfortable with 19% and 30 years, and for those very conservative planners, 1% and 40 years. I suspect few here would be comfortable with a 25 year window where the probability is little better than a flip of the coin.

Is it right? Of course not - any of us could die tomorrow, or live for another 40 years. But, at least it is reasonable and provides some rationale for an appropriate retirement planning window.

Wrench

[Leesbro63]

What happens when you are 96?

If you're asking me, I'd use other parts of my portfolio.

A 30 year TIPS ladder will currently allow a 4.45% withdrawal rate. This means you can set up a 4% guaranteed inflation adjusted withdrawal rate and have more than 10% of your portfolio left over to invest in stocks or whatever. If growth rates contemplated by the 4% "rule" come to pass, you'll have more than enough for years to come.

https://www.tipsladder.com/build?income ... =BestYield

This same question could be asked of ANY withdrawal method - the "standard" 4% Bengen withdrawal method only "works" for 30 years in the worst case. The question each of us needs to ask is: what is our retirement planning window, i.e. how long do I (or we if including a spouse) expect to live? Although that question is specifically unanswerable, it is quite easy to set some probabilities for various lifetime projections. For example, see:
https://www.longevityillustrator.org/
So, all one need to do is decide what probability one wants to plan for. For example, for a 69 yo male in average health and 68 yo female in excellent health, there is a 45% probability either will be alive in 25 years, 19% in 30 years, 6% in 35 years and 1% in 40 years. Based upon one's own risk tolerance for failure, pick the probability and corresponding years that you are most comfortable with. Personally, I would choose something in the single digits, but that's just me. So in this example 6% or 35 years. But, someone else might be comfortable with 19% and 30 years, and for those very conservative planners, 1% and 40 years. I suspect few here would be comfortable with a 25 year window where the probability is little better than a flip of the coin.

Is it right? Of course not - any of us could die tomorrow, or live for another 40 years. But, at least it is reasonable and provides some rationale for an appropriate retirement planning window.

Wrench

One difference between Bengen’s 4% and TIPS withdrawal is end probability. With TIPS, the probability of the money being totally gone in 30 years is 100%. With “the 4% rule”, there is huge probability that there will still be a huge nest egg at the end.

[protagonist]

For example, for a 69 yo male in average health and 68 yo female in excellent health, there is a 45% probability either will be alive in 25 years, 19% in 30 years, 6% in 35 years and 1% in 40 years.

1/16 will live to 103/104 and 1/100 will live to 108/109?
Only about 1/5000 Americans are centenarians.
Granted, the female is in excellent health at 68, but still......

In a lifetime of practicing medicine I can't offhand recall meeting anybody who made it to 108.