cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
     
Highlighted
Explorer ○○○

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@bilperk wrote:

I'm always surprised at how many retirees don't seem to understand that the point of their portfolio is to serve them until they die.  Those that want to have their portfolios grow over and above their expenses and inflation will surely have to take more risk, and even that may not help.  

Most of us are spoiled because we have lived through a couple of generations of the best investment results in history.  We may not see that down the road.  If you want your portfolio to last with lower risk, then you have to be willing to spend it down.  That's what it is there for.  If you start with 1M in retirement and die with 500K, so what?  Your kids will get over it.  And if you die with that 500K, but haven't done the things you wanted to, and spent the way you wanted to, then shame on you.

Once you accept that you may well spend your portfolio down, then you can learn to live with your real risk tolerance and not pretend you can change it just because interest rates are low on bonds or the PE is high on stocks.  Enjoy your life.  Be safe.


It's the idea behind Christine's retirement buckets. You have a stash, you plan how to deplete it in the remaining of your years. If your plan is to leave a good chunk of that money to your heirs, that's a different story. Spending 3,4 or 5% every year from your investments while trying not to touch principal takes herculean efforts, not entirely possible as your mind declines.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@AlwaysPassive wrote:
I fully agree with you. Bonds, meaning Intermediate term bonds are a sure way to lose money.

R48 in bold: AP, this is not historically true.  In fact at no times up to 2009 bear market, and then only temporarily, have bonds "LOST MONEY"...that is, in what's called nominal dollars.

Yes, bonds have generated NEGATIVE REAL RETURNS, meaning after inflation is subtracted.  A long period of about 1966 to 1981 was negative real returns for bonds.  

Bonds also do not go into "bubbles".  For those interested on this, and historical aspects of bonds, here is a great thread by poster nisiprius on Bpglehead.org forum:
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57313&mrr=1278467602


What do surprise me is that the Vanguard Retirement Target funds continue to use the highly popular Total US Bond Market with a duration of over 5 years,. What is it that they know that I am missing?

Many fund managers have to invest per the Fund Prospectus.  This means "sticking to their knitting. " So for instance, the manager of an intermediate term bond fund can't go to "all cash"...or 30 year bonds.  This would not be in shareholder interests, even if it saved money. 

When you add such a fund to your portfolio, you want that allocation. Period.  Most fund managers stay within prospectus goals.
RIP Jack Bogle wrote often that he was dismayed that Total US bond Market by rule (cap weighting) was staying at about 48% Treasury Bonds.  Bogle was very down on Treasuries...thought managers needed more flexibility.

R48 in bold.



 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@retiredat48 wrote:

@bilperk wrote:

I'm always surprised at how many retirees don't seem to understand that the point of their portfolio is to serve them until they die.  Those that want to have their portfolios grow over and above their expenses and inflation will surely have to take more risk, and even that may not help.  

Most of us are spoiled because we have lived through a couple of generations of the best investment results in history.  We may not see that down the road.  If you want your portfolio to last with lower risk, then you have to be willing to spend it down.  That's what it is there for.  If you start with 1M in retirement and die with 500K, so what?  Your kids will get over it.  And if you die with that 500K, but haven't done the things you wanted to, and spent the way you wanted to, then shame on you.

Once you accept that you may well spend your portfolio down, then you can learn to live with your real risk tolerance and not pretend you can change it just because interest rates are low on bonds or the PE is high on stocks.  Enjoy your life.  Be safe.


I read this post without seeing who the author was.

Then I noticed it was bilperk...wow.

He's talking about me, in the bold above.

I surely could not have retired at age 48 without accepting the likelihood of portfolio drawdown; I have done many of the things I wanted to do(67 done on top 100 buckets list, made at age 48); and I've learned to live with real risk tolerance.

R48

 


With all do respect, you were VERY EXTREMELY LUCKY.  Retiring at age 48 and withdrawing 7.8% annually (not counting for inflation) was irresponsible. 

It just happened that you retired in 1994 and the SP500 had 5 great years at 26.7% average annually. 

If you retired in 01/2000, your portfolio would be down 72% in 2009 and 61% at the end of 2010 (after more than 1.5 years of recovery).  I don't know one retiree who can accept this risk and I bet you can't find one serious financial advisor to back it up.

Luck is not a financial planning because I know several people that thought like you in 2000 and their portfolio got killed and had to continue working for years to come  :-)

Lastly, would you recommend the average Joe to retire at age 48 and withdraw 7.8% annually?

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?

 

FD, are you purposely doing this "FAKE NEWS?"

I have posted to you before that the 7.8% withdrawal rate was only to get me to an age 60 GE pension...and age 62 Social Security.  At which times a lower rate of withdrawal was done.  

And in some years during age 60's, no withdrawal taken, as I converted Trad IRA monies to ROTH IRA.

Ignore his post.

R48

 

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@bilperk wrote:

I'm always surprised at how many retirees don't seem to understand that the point of their portfolio is to serve them until they die.  Those that want to have their portfolios grow over and above their expenses and inflation will surely have to take more risk, and even that may not help.  

Most of us are spoiled because we have lived through a couple of generations of the best investment results in history.  We may not see that down the road.  If you want your portfolio to last with lower risk, then you have to be willing to spend it down.  That's what it is there for.  If you start with 1M in retirement and die with 500K, so what?  Your kids will get over it.  And if you die with that 500K, but haven't done the things you wanted to, and spent the way you wanted to, then shame on you.

Once you accept that you may well spend your portfolio down, then you can learn to live with your real risk tolerance and not pretend you can change it just because interest rates are low on bonds or the PE is high on stocks.  Enjoy your life.  Be safe.


@bilperk 

Terrific post!  Particularly around the issues of risk and risk tolerance.

That said, it's interesting to me how many older retirees have posted that they never thought that their portfolios would actually grow in retirement, but many have. 

And if someone is lucky enough to be in a situation to help heirs (without undue sacrifice or risk), well, good for them.  If they are lucky enough to be able to help children or grandchildren to eliminate student debt or help children with a downpayment on a house, good for them.  For some, spending money on those things or charitable endeavors might be more rewarding than spending on themselves.  But, if they do spending on themselves *and* others ... well ... God bless the child that's got his own.    

Note:  it's unclear how the lyrics to "God Bless The Child" really came about, but the Financial Times reported that the version from Billie Holiday's autobiography said, she (Holiday) "wrote it in a rage after her mother refused to give her a small loan — at a time when Holiday was bankrolling her restaurant. “She wouldn’t give me a cent. I was mad at her, she was mad at me . . . Then I said, ‘God bless the child that’s got his own’, and walked out."    

ctyankee

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@ctyankee wrote:

@bilperk wrote:

I'm always surprised at how many retirees don't seem to understand that the point of their portfolio is to serve them until they die.  Those that want to have their portfolios grow over and above their expenses and inflation will surely have to take more risk, and even that may not help.  

Most of us are spoiled because we have lived through a couple of generations of the best investment results in history.  We may not see that down the road.  If you want your portfolio to last with lower risk, then you have to be willing to spend it down.  That's what it is there for.  If you start with 1M in retirement and die with 500K, so what?  Your kids will get over it.  And if you die with that 500K, but haven't done the things you wanted to, and spent the way you wanted to, then shame on you.

Once you accept that you may well spend your portfolio down, then you can learn to live with your real risk tolerance and not pretend you can change it just because interest rates are low on bonds or the PE is high on stocks.  Enjoy your life.  Be safe.


@bilperk 

Terrific post!  Particularly around the issues of risk and risk tolerance.

That said, it's interesting to me how many older retirees have posted that they never thought that their portfolios would actually grow in retirement, but many have. 

And if someone is lucky enough to be in a situation to help heirs (without undue sacrifice or risk), well, good for them.  If they are lucky enough to be able to help children or grandchildren to eliminate student debt or help children with a downpayment on a house, good for them.  For some, spending money on those things or charitable endeavors might be more rewarding than spending on themselves.  But, if they do spending on themselves *and* others ... well ... God bless the child that's got his own.    

Note:  it's unclear how the lyrics to "God Bless The Child" really came about, but the Financial Times reported that the version from Billie Holiday's autobiography said, she (Holiday) "wrote it in a rage after her mother refused to give her a small loan — at a time when Holiday was bankrolling her restaurant. “She wouldn’t give me a cent. I was mad at her, she was mad at me . . . Then I said, ‘God bless the child that’s got his own’, and walked out."    

ctyankee


@ctyankee 

I agree 100%.  I didn't mean to imply at all that that one shouldn't help children or grandchildren and just spend on themselves.  I said, "And if you die with that 500K, but haven't done the things you wanted to, and spent the way you wanted to, then shame on you."  A lot of what I do want to do is for my child and grandchildren while I'm alive.  For example, a couple of years ago, I posted that I have pre-paid both my grandchildren's 4-year college tuition here in Florida.  I will likely also help with other expenses when it is time.  That may not be necessary because they are both all A students.   I'm a firm believer in spending on them and helping them now when they need it most, rather when I die and they are doing fine but had to struggle for years before.

And of course, most of us have seen our portfolios grow over and above our expenses in the last 20 years.  But I was ready to accept that I might have to spend down and moving forward, I believe new retirees may have to be also.  So we are on the same page.

Highlighted
Follower ○○○

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?

As far as I know, currently there are no investment grade bonds that produce a positive real return.

Sent from my iPhone
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor ○○○

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?

When we were testing various withdrawal strategies the goal was never to sit on principle and leave everything to our children.  The goal was to not run out of money before the end of the retirement period.  Spending down principle was a given.  The problem is the future is uncertain.  If an investor spends it today it won't be there if needed tomorrow.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@Poorfolio wrote:

@bilperk wrote:

I'm always surprised at how many retirees don't seem to understand that the point of their portfolio is to serve them until they die.  Those that want to have their portfolios grow over and above their expenses and inflation will surely have to take more risk, and even that may not help.  

Most of us are spoiled because we have lived through a couple of generations of the best investment results in history.  We may not see that down the road.  If you want your portfolio to last with lower risk, then you have to be willing to spend it down.  That's what it is there for.  If you start with 1M in retirement and die with 500K, so what?  Your kids will get over it.  And if you die with that 500K, but haven't done the things you wanted to, and spent the way you wanted to, then shame on you.

Once you accept that you may well spend your portfolio down, then you can learn to live with your real risk tolerance and not pretend you can change it just because interest rates are low on bonds or the PE is high on stocks.  Enjoy your life.  Be safe.


It's the idea behind Christine's retirement buckets. You have a stash, you plan how to deplete it in the remaining of your years. If your plan is to leave a good chunk of that money to your heirs, that's a different story. Spending 3,4 or 5% every year from your investments while trying not to touch principal takes herculean efforts, not entirely possible as your mind declines.


Retirement buckets strategy Is too complicated for investors to manage, moving assets from one bucket to another. Investors who generate more than enough income from investments, retirement benefits ,SS and other sources  don’t have to spend down their assets.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@retiredat48 wrote:

 

FD, are you purposely doing this "FAKE NEWS?"

I have posted to you before that the 7.8% withdrawal rate was only to get me to an age 60 GE pension...and age 62 Social Security.  At which times a lower rate of withdrawal was done.  

And in some years during age 60's, no withdrawal taken, as I converted Trad IRA monies to ROTH IRA.

Ignore his post.

R48

 

 


My numbers are based on your posts and are correct and why you posted that if you had to go back to work you would.

 If you retired in 01/2000 invested in SP500 + 7.8% annual withdrawal this portfolio would be down by more than 70% by 2009 and down by 58 after 12 years. See link

vfinx.PNG

Let's see:

Do you recommend anybody NOW to retire at age 48 with 7.8% annual withdrawal to age 60 and then the rest?

Do you think you can find a serious financial adviser that would recommend what you did?

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@Intruder wrote:

@Poorfolio wrote:

@bilperk wrote:

I'm always surprised at how many retirees don't seem to understand that the point of their portfolio is to serve them until they die.  Those that want to have their portfolios grow over and above their expenses and inflation will surely have to take more risk, and even that may not help.  

Most of us are spoiled because we have lived through a couple of generations of the best investment results in history.  We may not see that down the road.  If you want your portfolio to last with lower risk, then you have to be willing to spend it down.  That's what it is there for.  If you start with 1M in retirement and die with 500K, so what?  Your kids will get over it.  And if you die with that 500K, but haven't done the things you wanted to, and spent the way you wanted to, then shame on you.

Once you accept that you may well spend your portfolio down, then you can learn to live with your real risk tolerance and not pretend you can change it just because interest rates are low on bonds or the PE is high on stocks.  Enjoy your life.  Be safe.


It's the idea behind Christine's retirement buckets. You have a stash, you plan how to deplete it in the remaining of your years. If your plan is to leave a good chunk of that money to your heirs, that's a different story. Spending 3,4 or 5% every year from your investments while trying not to touch principal takes herculean efforts, not entirely possible as your mind declines.


Retirement buckets strategy Is too complicated for investors to manage, moving assets from one bucket to another. Investors who generate more than enough income from investments, retirement benefits ,SS and other sources  don’t have to spend down their assets.


Buckets are not all that complicated.  Many just have two buckets; X years of cash and a second bucket portfolio that will throw off enough cash to refill bucket 1 and have growth of principal over time.  Not complicated at all.

Investors who generate more than enough income from investments need to look at their total return.  If they are spending more income from their investments than their total return, they are spending down their portfolio.

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?

Interesting thread! What hasn’t been mentioned is the size of ones portfolio, and covering ones basic needs. If you plan to hold more in equities you also has to make sure that you have enough “safe assets” set aside, so you can tolerate bear markets without selling equities. 

If your portfolio is not real large, then that puts you into a position of having to stick with a larger percentage of bonds/ fixed income, and potentially having to “spend down” your portfolio as you get older. Nothing is wrong w/ this, as long as you have “enough” to last for your lifetime. If your portfolio is larger, one can still be more “aggressive” (holding more in equities), as long as they hold some “safe assets” that can tide one over lean times.

In view of very low current bond yields, I’m going to hold about 7- 10 years of our spending requirements in “safer high quality bonds”. This way, I can “survive” a prolonged bear market. Yes, the yields (and returns) will be low, but this will provide a “safe cushion” of stable bonds that we can gradually sell off to fund expenses, in case we retire into a bad bear market. This may be only 10-20% of our assets, but it will be large enough to support us while we wait for the markets to recover.

Retirees who plan to hold higher equity percentages, need to plan in case of a severe bear market, especially early in ones retirement (sequence of returns risk). 

Win
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@Win1177 wrote:

Interesting thread!

 

In view of very low current bond yields, I’m going to hold about 7- 10 years of our spending requirements in “safer high quality bonds”. This way, I can “survive” a prolonged bear market. Yes, the yields (and returns) will be low, but this will provide a “safe cushion” of stable bonds that we can gradually sell off to fund expenses, in case we retire into a bad bear market. This may be only 10-20% of our assets, but it will be large enough to support us while we wait for the markets to recover.

Retirees who plan to hold higher equity percentages, need to plan in case of a severe bear market, especially early in ones retirement (sequence of returns risk). 


Yes, a seven year bond holdings in case of a bear market is a truly long, conservative allocation to this "bucket".

However, there is a problem here with this kind of approach...even such a long one.

What happens if a seven year stock bear market occurs?  Now, you have sold all these bond funds.  If you did not replenish along the way, ones asset allocation is now way out of whack.

This is what happens when investors say they have a two years short term bond fund bucket.  In a two year bear market, this bucket becomes empty.  Now what?  What do you sell to fill a bucket for the upcoming year's distributions, especially if a lagging bear market persists?

It is why i recommend STRATEGIC SELLING of stock funds, to serve as buckets.  Such as, with stocks hitting new highs...or melt-ups...or the need to eliminate a lagging fund you own.

Like this year, from December to mid February, I sold stock funds  that gave me a two year RMD bucket...due to Jan melt-up, and Covid concerns (posted such sales and rationale real time).  Called "vaccinating" your portfolio.  So when COVID  fully materialized, I had a huge cushion...21 months worth.

Comforting.

R48

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@FD1001 wrote:

@retiredat48 wrote:

 

FD, are you purposely doing this "FAKE NEWS?"

I have posted to you before that the 7.8% withdrawal rate was only to get me to an age 60 GE pension...and age 62 Social Security.  At which times a lower rate of withdrawal was done.  

And in some years during age 60's, no withdrawal taken, as I converted Trad IRA monies to ROTH IRA.

Ignore his post.

R48

 

 


My numbers are based on your posts and are correct and why you posted that if you had to go back to work you would.

 If you retired in 01/2000 invested in SP500 + 7.8% annual withdrawal this portfolio would be down by more than 70% by 2009 and down by 58 after 12 years. See link

vfinx.PNG

Let's see:

Do you recommend anybody NOW to retire at age 48 with 7.8% annual withdrawal to age 60 and then the rest?

Do you think you can find a serious financial adviser that would recommend what you did?


You keep speculating about things.

First, you cherry pick the top of the bull market run, then project onward.  But I knowingly did not retire then.  One chooses their retirement date and portfolio size knowing where the market is at that time, if they CHOOSE to retire early.  I submit most people would realize the dot com bubble was underway in the date you selected.

Second, you assume I needed the full 7.8% to live on.  I did not.  I explained in other posts the 7.8% came from the maximum "periodic annual distribution" formula the IRS has, to allow withdrawals without having any early IRA withdrawal penalty.  One has to take it annually to age 59 1/2.  I did so...then reduced it greatly.  This gave me the cushion in taxable accounts to use age sixties to convert Trad IRAs to ROTHs.  I did.

Simple fact.. I retired at age 48, and portfolio has grown in size, although I was prepared to have it reduce by the numbers you cited above, because the pension and SS was then kicking in.  And if my portfolio got smaller, I perhaps would not own a third house...I could adjust spending downward..and not be a member of a Jack Nicklaus designed Signature Golf Course...and tithe less...and not invite posters richardsok, and El Lobo to my club, on a beautiful river, and pay for his lunch...and so on.  You live according to your means.

Point is, why is any of my personal history relevant to this thread??  

R48

 

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?

Hmmm...bilperk...may I  ask:

Any tie-in with: 

Die with Zero: Getting All You Can from Your Money and Your Life Hardcover – July 28, 2020
 
 
 
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
R48
 

 
 
 
 
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@retiredat48 wrote:
Die with Zero: Getting All You Can from Your Money and Your Life 
Hardcover – July 28, 2020

Is this @bilperk  ??

Called the "Last Cowboy" of hedge funds by the Wall Street Journal, Bill Perkins is considered one of the most successful energy traders in history. He's reported to have generated more than $1 billion for his previous firm during a five year period. After studying electrical engineering at the University of Iowa, Bill trained on Wall Street and later moved to Houston, TX where he made a fortune as an energy trader.

Now at age 51, Bill's professional life includes work as a hedge fund manager with more than $120 million in assets, Hollywood film producer, high stakes tournament poker player, and the resident "Indiana Jones" for several charities.

Bill manages this via smartphone on his yacht in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and while traveling the world with close friends and family.

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?

 

Yes, it's him! I guess that shuffleboard thing was just a front.  He's probably skiing down Mt. Everest today; diving the Titanic tomorrow; inventing a homemade cure for Covid-19 on Friday.  What a guy!

Hope Ryan doesn't ban me.

 

eff9208d-perkinsbook-815x543.jpg

 

Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@norbertc wrote:

 

Yes, it's him! I guess that shuffleboard thing was just a front.  He's probably skiing down Mt. Everest today; diving the Titanic tomorrow; inventing a homemade cure for Covid-19 on Friday.  What a guy!

Hope Ryan doesn't ban me.


Because that would been so unfair, given your off-topic commentary about another poster...

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@retiredat48 wrote:

@FD1001 wrote:

@retiredat48 wrote:

 

Simple fact.. I retired at age 48, and portfolio has grown in size, although I was prepared to have it reduce by the numbers you cited above, because the pension and SS was then kicking in.  And if my portfolio got smaller, I perhaps would not own a third house...I could adjust spending downward..and not be a member of a Jack Nicklaus designed Signature Golf Course...and tithe less...and not invite posters richardsok, and El Lobo to my club, on a beautiful river, and pay for his lunch...and so on.  You live according to your means.

Point is, why is any of my personal history relevant to this thread??  

R48

 

 


@retiredat48 

I'm not sure why you went there.  Personally, I've always been happy for folks that have done well.  After all, it doesn't change my situation, so why not be happy for others?  

Excuse the aside, but I vividly remember a 401K presentation at my company (probably around 1990).  After a HR song and dance, they showed a video where three co-workers invested differently in their company's 401K plan.  The first invested for the company matching max, the second did that and beyond and the third put off doing anything at all.  The video ends with the two guys that had invested through the years having lunch at the golf course where they guy who never got around to investing was their waiter.  Well, as a golfer, that REALLY hit home.  That and the idle lunchtime talk with my two lunch buddies, trying to decide which one of us was going to be the waiter for the other two.   

ctyankee 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Are Higher Stock Allocations the Only Option for Retirees?


@ctyankee wrote:

@retiredat48 wrote:

@FD1001 wrote:

@retiredat48 wrote:

 

Simple fact.. I retired at age 48, and portfolio has grown in size, although I was prepared to have it reduce by the numbers you cited above, because the pension and SS was then kicking in.  And if my portfolio got smaller, I perhaps would not own a third house...I could adjust spending downward..and not be a member of a Jack Nicklaus designed Signature Golf Course...and tithe less...and not invite posters richardsok, and El Lobo to my club, on a beautiful river, and pay for his lunch...and so on.  You live according to your means.

Point is, why is any of my personal history relevant to this thread??  

R48

 

 


@retiredat48 

I'm not sure why you went there.  Personally, I've always been happy for folks that have done well.  After all, it doesn't change my situation, so why not be happy for others?  

R48 reply in bold...I didn't go anywhere "there".  FD keeps making these posts about my lifetime, retiring at age 48, etc and how "lucky" this was.  He ignores facts of my situation.  I begrudge no one for retiring early.  Heck, my (newer) gated golfing  community, had all retirees, average age 53 at one quarter buildout.  Must have been some "market timers" in that group.  I know they could all hit a 3 iron!

Excuse the aside, but I vividly remember a 401K presentation at my company (probably around 1990).  After a HR song and dance, they showed a video where three co-workers invested differently in their company's 401K plan.  The first invested for the company matching max, the second did that and beyond and the third put off doing anything at all.  The video ends with the two guys that had invested through the years having lunch at the golf course where they guy who never got around to investing was their waiter.  Well, as a golfer, that REALLY hit home.  That and the idle lunchtime talk with my two lunch buddies, trying to decide which one of us was going to be the waiter for the other two.   

Good story.  GE allowed employees to add 10% more, above the company match (50% of 7%).  I did the max. for 27 years, w/o withdrawing a penny.  Paid off!

R48 in bold

ctyankee 


 

0 Kudos
Announcements