Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-19-2016, 10:04 AM   #61
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
My understanding is that the 4% rule was suggested for those retiring at a 'normal' retirement age - about 65. ....
Good point. If you do a Firecalc run of 4% using a 50/50 portfolio over 30 years and all other default assumptions the success rate is 95.8%. Change that 30 years to 40 years and the success rate changes to 73.3%. To get back to 94.8% over 40 years you need to reduce the WR to ~3.5%.
__________________

__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 02-19-2016, 10:56 AM   #62
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
You're kidding us, right? In your OP (and your first post) you ask if any people are using 4% and how it is going and then 5 posts you later admonish us that it might not work and lecture people as to what their plan should include.

Seems pretty arrogant to me. I guess you learned a lot in 6 posts. What makes you think you are such an expert that you can lecture us?
I apologize that my post came across as arrogant. That wasn't my intent.

My intent was not to admonish, just giving my opinion of how I'm approaching the 4% rule after this thread and lots of other reading. I learned by reading, not so much by writing posts.

Not many people on this thread said they retired early on 4% or more (you were one of the few). I think the reason is many prospective early retirees came to the same conclusion I did - the 4% rule may have worked in the past for a 30 year retirement, but it's applicability to a 50 year retirement going forward is in serious doubt. Many posters in this thread have expressed the same doubts.

I wish you all the best and thanks again everyone for your input.
__________________

__________________
AdrianC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2016, 11:28 AM   #63
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Castro Valley
Posts: 402
Quote:
But in any case, while I am still alive I like to see a nice number at the bottom of Quicken screen if I can help it. It's not to leave to the kids, as I hope leaving them the homes will be good enough for them. It's for my comfort, as having money gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling that spending it on anything cannot match.
I agree completely that having money as security yields more happiness than just spending it because you can.

To me the 4% rule comes into play when all income streams come online. I plan on starting SS at 62 and that's when I'll evaluate my initial withdrawal rate. Of course I've made some projections, but I won't know what my portfolio value will be until then.

The 4% is a guideline and here's my view on it:

4% Too high, not comfortable at all
3.5% Maximum amount, still worried
3% Comfortable, just ok
2.5% Very comfortable, no problems
2% Absolutely golden
__________________
jkern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2016, 11:43 AM   #64
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianC View Post
I apologize that my post came across as arrogant. That wasn't my intent.

My intent was not to admonish, just giving my opinion of how I'm approaching the 4% rule after this thread and lots of other reading. I learned by reading, not so much by writing posts.

Not many people on this thread said they retired early on 4% or more (you were one of the few). I think the reason is many prospective early retirees came to the same conclusion I did - the 4% rule may have worked in the past for a 30 year retirement, but it's applicability to a 50 year retirement going forward is in serious doubt. Many posters in this thread have expressed the same doubts.

I wish you all the best and thanks again everyone for your input.
The 4% rule is usually defined over 30 years....if you go to 50 years you need to do new calculations.....and the SWR drops to 3%

The 4% SWR rule is a gross simplification derived from Monte Carlo testing of random sets of market returns for various asset allocations over different withdrawal times. To boil it down to a simple rule of thumb a 50/50 bond/equity portfolio might be defined, then a withdrawal term is defined, say 30 years (assuming someone retires at 65 and lives longer than expected), success is defined as having a greater than 95% chance of having money left after 30 years and inflation is estimated at maybe 3% and.....voila.....a 4% WR fits in with all those assumptions. If any of those are wrong or change then the SWR will change too, which is why some people will monitor the WR and adjust it if necessary. There are lots of papers and research about all the options and possible scenarios, but you can use an online tool called FIREcalc to run the simulations for various combinations of parameters. If you push the length of retirement form 30 to 40 or 50 years you'll see the SWR, or the probability of success, decrease
__________________
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

Current AA: 65% Equity Funds / 20% Bonds / 7% Stable Value /3% Cash / 5% TIAA Traditional
Retired Mar 2014 at age 52, target WR: 0.0%,
Income from pension and rent
nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2016, 11:44 AM   #65
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianC View Post
I apologize that my post came across as arrogant. That wasn't my intent.

My intent was not to admonish, just giving my opinion of how I'm approaching the 4% rule after this thread and lots of other reading. I learned by reading, not so much by writing posts.

Not many people on this thread said they retired early on 4% or more (you were one of the few). I think the reason is many prospective early retirees came to the same conclusion I did - the 4% rule may have worked in the past for a 30 year retirement, but it's applicability to a 50 year retirement going forward is in serious doubt. Many posters in this thread have expressed the same doubts.

I wish you all the best and thanks again everyone for your input.
Apology accepted... I didn't think that was your intent but I guess I was in a sour mood when I read it.

And to be clear, while we have early retired and our WR is currently more than 4%, once my pension and our SS are online our WR will be much lower than 4% which is why I was comfortable retiring early. For situations like ours I think it most prudent to look at the ultimate WR rate which can be estimated by reducing the withdrawals numerator by SS and pensions and reducing the resources denominator by the amount of funds needed to carry you from ER to the point that SS and pensions start. What you are in effect doing is segregating the money you need to carry you from ER to SS from the total and then calculating your WR at the time you start SS.

So for example, if one retired at 60 had $1 million and needed $60k a year to live on and expected to receive $36k a year in SS at 66 while your initial WR would be 6% the ultimate WR would be 3.75% [($60 needed-$36 SS)/($1,000 at retirement-($60 needed*6 years)].

If anything the 3.75% would be conservative since it assumes zero real growth of the portfolio during the 6 years from 60 to 66. If you assume 2% annual real growth it reduces the WR to about 3.3% ($24/$640*(1+2%)^6)
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2016, 11:46 AM   #66
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Richmond
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
I have to plan as if I may still be around until 95.

30 years for someone retiring at 65 is simply prudent planning.

Yes it's conservative. It's all conservative.
Absolutely agree - you might fall off the perch at 70 and leave a fortune to the kids, but it would be unfortunate to expend all your savings by a certain age and outlive that age.
__________________
Andy2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2016, 12:22 PM   #67
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkern View Post
I agree completely that having money as security yields more happiness than just spending it because you can.

To me the 4% rule comes into play when all income streams come online. I plan on starting SS at 62 and that's when I'll evaluate my initial withdrawal rate. Of course I've made some projections, but I won't know what my portfolio value will be until then.

The 4% is a guideline and here's my view on it:

4% Too high, not comfortable at all
3.5% Maximum amount, still worried
3% Comfortable, just ok
2.5% Very comfortable, no problems
2% Absolutely golden
I like your guideline. Just wondering are you also considering an inflation adjustment with those figures?
__________________
ripper1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2016, 01:34 PM   #68
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,501
I don't think you need to consider an inflation adjustment in the ratio... but rather in the numerator and denominator used in computing the ratio. IOW both numerator and denominator should be based on a certain date.

I agree with kjkern's guideline for a 62 or 65 year old, but for a 80 year old it would be way too conservative and for a 40 year old it would be way too liberal.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2016, 11:29 PM   #69
Moderator Emeritus
Nords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oahu
Posts: 26,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianC View Post
Not many people on this thread said they retired early on 4% or more (you were one of the few). I think the reason is many prospective early retirees came to the same conclusion I did - the 4% rule may have worked in the past for a 30 year retirement, but it's applicability to a 50 year retirement going forward is in serious doubt. Many posters in this thread have expressed the same doubts.
Well, I think the reason is that your logic and your conclusion are flawed. The reason is that many early retirees are tired of rehashing this perpetual topic and didn't bother to respond.

Luckily if you're not comfortable with the 4% SWR then you're the only one who has to work longer to pad your nest egg until you can sleep comfortably at night. Behavioral finance is at least as important as the math.

But I've been retired for nearly 14 years on the 4% SWR, including two awe-inspiring recessions, and I think that counts as "so far so good" for sequence of returns risk.

Let's rehash the assumptions that the Trinity trio made to simplify their computer simulations:
- 1% expense ratio on investments
- No Social Security
- No flexible spending
- Conservative asset allocation

So if you go by the 4% SWR, right away you're assuming that you throw away 100 basis points every year. In my case, with my expense ratio of about 24 basis points, I have an extra 0.76% on my side.

I don't know about you, but I expect Social Security to be available when I turn 70 years old in 15(!??!) years. That's about $12K/year for me and another $12K for my spouse. That's at least a quarter of our spending unless we're really blowing it out for travel.

Which brings me to the next point: we don't rigidly spend 4% + CPI every year. I don't think anybody does, and we can all cut back during a recession. There's another margin to let a portfolio recover from a bear market.

Which brings me to my final point: you'll never get a 100% success ratio, and statistics indicates that anything over 80% is ludicrous. Instead of maximizing your success ratio eliminate your failure rate by annuitizing a portion of your portfolio to provide a minimal standard of living. Maybe that annuity is SS, or maybe it's another type of deferred annuity, or maybe you buy a SPIA. But once you have that minimum longevity insurance covered, then you can invest in a much higher asset allocation of around 80/20 stocks/cash.

By the time I'm 70 I'll have lived through 29 of the 30 years. I'll let you know how it goes while I reset the calendar for a second 30-year retirement. I'm guessing it'll work out too.
__________________
*
*

The book written on E-R.org, "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement", on sale now! For more info see "About Me" in my profile.
I don't spend much time here anymore, so please send me a PM. Thanks.
Nords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2016, 05:11 AM   #70
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
Apology accepted... I didn't think that was your intent but I guess I was in a sour mood when I read it.

And to be clear, while we have early retired and our WR is currently more than 4%, once my pension and our SS are online our WR will be much lower than 4% which is why I was comfortable retiring early. For situations like ours I think it most prudent to look at the ultimate WR rate which can be estimated by reducing the withdrawals numerator by SS and pensions and reducing the resources denominator by the amount of funds needed to carry you from ER to the point that SS and pensions start. What you are in effect doing is segregating the money you need to carry you from ER to SS from the total and then calculating your WR at the time you start SS.

So for example, if one retired at 60 had $1 million and needed $60k a year to live on and expected to receive $36k a year in SS at 66 while your initial WR would be 6% the ultimate WR would be 3.75% [($60 needed-$36 SS)/($1,000 at retirement-($60 needed*6 years)].

If anything the 3.75% would be conservative since it assumes zero real growth of the portfolio during the 6 years from 60 to 66. If you assume 2% annual real growth it reduces the WR to about 3.3% ($24/$640*(1+2%)^6)
Great points!
One of the things that I'm slowly grasping is that while I am just starting out in retirement now, (I'm 62, DW is 58), every few years things are going to change for the better. in 3 years I get Medicare, in 4 years DW gets SS, in 7 years DW gets Medicare, in 10 years a 10K/ year mortgage gets paid off... each one of those milestones takes a good chunk off of what I need to withdraw.

I have also come to the conclusion that the 10K/ year mortgage at 2.75% interest could also be largely viewed as "asset relocation", taking money from my 60-40 IRA portfolio and putting it into a real estate holding, on a lake house that if I live long enough, I will likely sell.
To me, the fly in the ointment, if there is one, is the historically low interest rates that force us into perhaps more volatility than I'd like in order to try to reach a % return that will make the 4% WR a "gimme"...
__________________
HadEnuff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2016, 06:52 AM   #71
Recycles dryer sheets
Focus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Minus View Post
I agree with your point about early retirement, which is why I've backed off my starting SWR to 3.5% but, given the most recent numbers provided by Pfau, feel that the combination of SS, Pension, 40-45% stock, variable withdrawal plans, and a "slowdown factor" as we age, each provide an additional measure of safety.

Trinity Study Updates - Retirement Researcher
At first, I thought, "Are we talking about the same Pfau?" I've always found his conclusions pessimistic and not exactly encouraging. But yes indeed, there is a light at the end of the post you linked to:

Quote:
6. On the other hand, there is some good news. Retirees who diversify their portfolios with international assets and TIPS many very well find an edge to keep the 4% rule alive.
7. UPDATE – MORE GOOD NEWS: I am hearing more and more that actual retirees do not necessarily need to adjust their spending for inflation each year, and that actual retirees may voluntarily reduce their spending as they get older. For both of these cases, a higher initial withdrawal rate can be supported. The combination of these factors may mean that the no-inflation adjustments case (which is shown in Table 1 of the updated Trinity study) may be more representative of what actual retirees will experience. I hadn’t realized this. The traditional 4% rule only applies when taking annual inflation adjustments. I have not done research about how my other concerns listed above impact withdrawal rates for the no-inflation adjustments case, but I hope to do this later.
__________________
-
"Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants."
--Epictetus
Focus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2016, 07:08 AM   #72
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nords View Post
Let's rehash the assumptions that the Trinity trio made to simplify their computer simulations:
- 1% expense ratio on investments
- No Social Security
- No flexible spending
- Conservative asset allocation

So if you go by the 4% SWR, right away you're assuming that you throw away 100 basis points every year. In my case, with my expense ratio of about 24 basis points, I have an extra 0.76% on my side.
I didn't know that the Trinity Study assumed a 1% expense ratio or other cost on investments?

I was pretty sure that they assumed no investment expenses/expense ratios but just used historical index data. Obviously not quite real world. OK - you made me go back and scan it (link at bottom).
Quote:
The Standard & Poor’s 500 index was used to represent stocks, and long-term, high-grade corporate bonds were used to represent bonds.

The study did not adjust for taxes or transaction costs. An investor’s own experience would differ depending on how much of his assets were in tax-deferred accounts, and the extent to which transaction costs could be held to a minimum using low-cost index funds.
And that it was a much later Pfau model that assumed 1% expense ratio among other factors that resulted in a much lower SWR.

The Trinity study doesn't discuss social security simply because they were trying to answer the question "how much money they [the retiree] should plan to withdraw annually from their investment portfolio". Obviously this would be in addition to any other income sources available to the retiree such as pension or social security.

They modeled the entire range of portfolio allocations, so it didn't apply to a "conservative" asset allocation. They modeled 0% stocks to 100% stocks in 25% stock increments. And their results showed that 75% stocks was optimal, although 50% stocks was close. Certainly these are not conservative allocations.

Link to the Trinity Study paper http://www.aaii.com/journal/article/...m_medium=click
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2016, 07:34 AM   #73
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,501
+1 If that is the case, given the downward trend in ERs since the study was completed that probably makes 4% now 4.75% (my aggregate ER is 0.14% so I think 0.25% should be easily attainable for most people).
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2016, 08:10 AM   #74
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
+1 If that is the case, given the downward trend in ERs since the study was completed that probably makes 4% now 4.75% (my aggregate ER is 0.14% so I think 0.25% should be easily attainable for most people).
See my post above yours.
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2016, 08:42 AM   #75
Full time employment: Posting here.
Markola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nords View Post
. But I've been retired for nearly 14 years on the 4% SWR, including two awe-inspiring recessions, and I think that counts as "so far so good" for sequence of returns risk.
.
Thanks for this whole informed, real-world comment, Nords, which I've read a couple of times. Of course you didn't know in 2002 what the economy would do going forward, but you got an extra springboard effect in hindsight because the sequence of returns helped you. I hope I'd have the guts to FIRE in a period when there is at least residual "blood on the streets" and some upside possibly left in the stock market, versus when I hit my number and all looks rosy. Who knows, because life is never certain, including one's j*b, so behavioral finance and steady adaptation to life over math, indeed.
__________________
Markola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2016, 08:54 AM   #76
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
See my post above yours.
Ah... I see.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2016, 08:58 AM   #77
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nords View Post
Which brings me to my final point: you'll never get a 100% success ratio, and statistics indicates that anything over 80% is ludicrous. Instead of maximizing your success ratio eliminate your failure rate by annuitizing a portion of your portfolio to provide a minimal standard of living. Maybe that annuity is SS, or maybe it's another type of deferred annuity, or maybe you buy a SPIA. But once you have that minimum longevity insurance covered, then you can invest in a much higher asset allocation of around 80/20 stocks/cash.
And here is what I think is just about the most useful point made on any retirement forum I've read to date.
__________________
ggbutcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2016, 09:37 AM   #78
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,874
When I was putting together my ER plan back in 2007-08 (well before I first found this forum), I had never heard of WR. Instead, I was working on predicting my ER expenses and my reliable ER income starting at age 45, the age I would be at the end of 2008. For me, even if I had heard of WR, it wouldn't have been too useful for me in my plan because I would have unfettered access to only a portion of my portfolio until I turned ~60/. SS, my frozen company pension, and clean access to my IRA (what I call my "reinforcements") were still at least 15 years away so I could use only my current, non-retirement assets. Should I use a higher WR based on only 2/3 of my portfolio even if I'd be using only that subset for 15 years?

Beinf a Fido client, I met with my Account Executive in 2008 and we ran their RIP program on my data and she gave me a clear signal that I was "clear to go" with my ER. The cute chart showed me with huge surpluses starting at age ~60 after a decent 15-year period prior to age ~60 when I'd be living only off the non-retirement stuff.

Since I ERed, my WR using my entire portfolio has been around 2.5% except for a few years when it was under 2% (some lower HI premiums prior to the ACA). If I excluded the IRA from the denominator, I'd have a WR between 3.5% and 4% but as I wrote above, how meaningful is that?

A good, rebounding market has helped keep the WR down but the bond fund whose income I rely on has seen a slow but gradual decline in monthly dividends since 2009 although I have more shares in that fund now to offset the cents-per-share dividend it has been paying. And I still turn a surplus on average every month to amply cover any small, unforeseen expenses. Isn't that what really counts in the end?
__________________
Retired in late 2008 at age 45. Cashed in company stock, bought a lot of shares in a big bond fund and am living nicely off its dividends. IRA, SS, and a pension await me at age 60 and later. No kids, no debts.

"I want my money working for me instead of me working for my money!"
scrabbler1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2016, 10:27 AM   #79
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Castro Valley
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by ripper1 View Post
I like your guideline. Just wondering are you also considering an inflation adjustment with those figures?
Yes, I assumed that the SWR is the initial rate and adjusted for inflation there after.
__________________
jkern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2016, 11:39 AM   #80
Full time employment: Posting here.
hankster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by HadEnuff View Post
Great points!
One of the things that I'm slowly grasping is that while I am just starting out in retirement now, (I'm 62, DW is 58), every few years things are going to change for the better. in 3 years I get Medicare, in 4 years DW gets SS, in 7 years DW gets Medicare, in 10 years a 10K/ year mortgage gets paid off... each one of those milestones takes a good chunk off of what I need to withdraw.
With 16 months until planned ER date, I've been encouraged by this same realization. Once we complete the 2 1/2 year gap between retirement at age 59.5 and SS eligibility at age 62, we can look forward to a similar series of income increases and expense decreases over the following 5 or so years. It definitely increases my confidence level to pull the plug next July.
__________________

__________________
"There is no dignity quite so impressive, and no independence quite so important, as living within your means." Calvin Coolidge
hankster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
swr


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hi-New here! Hoping to FIRE in 16 years. How do expenses pre FIRE change over time? NgineER Hi, I am... 29 01-04-2017 09:57 AM
Fire! Fire!---Not FIRE mickeyd Other topics 16 11-18-2008 05:19 PM
The Heresy: On Fire for Semi-FIRE Whisper9999 Young Dreamers 21 10-19-2008 09:39 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:48 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.