SWR for a $2.5 million nest egg...

[REWahoo]

I am open to being convinced otherwise.

I don't think so and I wouldn't dream of even attempting to dissuade you from your strongly held opinions.

There are many ways for people to get to where they want to be financially. What works for you might not work for me. The nice thing about it is we all get to choose which path we take.

 

[Kroeran]

?? I think there are a lot of folks here that derive a significant portion or all of their income from portfolio investments at least a portion of which are/were invested in equities.

Here's a recent thread on sources of retirement income that shows what people are actually depending on for retirement income. Some rely primarily on pensions, and some rely primarily on portfolio investments (which may include CD's and bonds or bond funds). Social security figures in to many's income streams as well.

Today's 20- and 30-somethings will probably have a different experience in early retirement since large pensions are much much rarer today even in government employment. You can either save it up in CD's and hope inflation doesn't eat you alive, or risk it in the market and hope Mr. Market doesn't eat you alive. There is no real "risk free" way to build up a big portfolio.

have you personally ever met an old fart who said, "you know, I spent my whole life putting money into the markets, did'nt have a pension, didn't pay down my mortgage, but all that money I put in the markets built up real nice because I held on during the bad years, and now I have a comfortable retirement" ....I have never met such a person myself.

I am just saying, if you are not working toward a pension, and corporate pensions arn't too reliable these days, I think you are on very thin ice thinking you are going to get 8% or more yield out of the market, when you are going to need it. The required action is downsizing the house, getting the mortgage paid off by age 40, then a heroic effort to save, at rates few can currently conceive of.

For the very young, I beg them to buy student housing and rent out rooms. (In my twenties, I had 2 houses near each other, and lived in a dank corner of the basement to increase yield). You also meet tons of members of the opposite sex in that business...as a bonus!

For young couples, I beg them to buy triplexes and live in one unit, pay down the mortgage...sure thing...sure thing. Owner in the store. Move on to a 6 plex and so on. Minimize leverage. Slow but sure. And in this day and age, if you are not in healthcare, join the military or CIA or something to get that basic security, and experiment on the side with money.

 

[Kroeran]

Hi. I'm one of those.

did you make your money from the market, or was that where you stashed money from a lucrative profession/business?

were you in the financial industry?

did you beat 5% consistently in your market activities?

 

[Kroeran]

I don't think so and I wouldn't dream of even attempting to dissuade you from your strongly held opinions.

There are many ways for people to get to where they want to be financially. What works for you might not work for me. The nice thing about it is we all get to choose which path we take.

If you change your mind and overlook my arrogance, I am ready and willing to be educated.

I dont mean any disrespect...I find sometimes by stirring the pot I get to the lesson in an issue faster.

I see from your earlier link that perhaps its not so black and white, and that
"successfull" retirees have several sources of income, and there should be a lesson there for the young.

I do need to explore the nude modeling angle you mention as a source of income! ; - ) [maybe that was fuego]

 

[FUEGO]

have you personally ever met an old fart who said, "you know, I spent my whole life putting money into the markets, did'nt have a pension, didn't pay down my mortgage, but all that money I put in the markets built up real nice because I held on during the bad years, and now I have a comfortable retirement" ....I have never met such a person myself.

I am just saying, if you are not working toward a pension, and corporate pensions arn't too reliable these days, I think you are on very thin ice thinking you are going to get 8% or more yield out of the market, when you are going to need it. The required action is downsizing the house, getting the mortgage paid off by age 40, then a heroic effort to save, at rates few can currently conceive of.

For the very young, I beg them to buy student housing and rent out rooms. (In my twenties, I had 2 houses near each other, and lived in a dank corner of the basement to increase yield). You also meet tons of members of the opposite sex in that business...as a bonus!

For young couples, I beg them to buy triplexes and live in one unit, pay down the mortgage...sure thing...sure thing. Owner in the store. Move on to a 6 plex and so on. Minimize leverage. Slow but sure. And in this day and age, if you are not in healthcare, join the military or CIA or something to get that basic security, and experiment on the side with money.

I honestly don't know many old farts in real life. So I can't really comment on what has led to successful retirements other than from the statistics I have seen on sources of income for retired folks in the aggregate. Most get by on small pensions and social security. Some get a small amount of money from interest and dividends from their portfolios. I would suggest that the early retirees on here are atypical versus standard retirees. Investing in the stock market is probably not a good idea for you, since you don't seem to have the mindset to buy and hold. It's not for everyone and there are many other ways to make insane amounts of money, including real estate as you have suggested. I've been there and done that to a limited extent and made some money.

I am planning to have the mortgage paid off by age 40 (actually age 37), we never upsized the house, so no downsizing is required. We already save around 60% of gross income, so I guess we are also "heroically saving" as well. Our net worth is at an all time high primarily due to recent performance in the market and continuing to invest in a 100% equities portfolio. +26% last quarter (after many quarters of ugly losses).

So do these facts together convince you of the feasibility of my plans?

 

[Kroeran]

I am planning to have the mortgage paid off by age 40 (actually age 37), we never upsized the house, so no downsizing is required. We already save around 60% of gross income, so I guess we are also "heroically saving" as well. Our net worth is at an all time high primarily due to recent performance in the market and continuing to invest in a 100% equities portfolio. +26% last quarter (after many quarters of ugly losses).

So do these facts together convince you of the feasibility of my plans?

wow!

lets say you want to be free at 50...does this mean you will shift 10% of your stake to fixed income each year?

will you be 100% dependent on your investment income at that point?

why do you want to retire early? what would you do with your retirement?

are there kids in the pipeline?

are you confident you will not face divorce?

 

[Nords]

If you change your mind and overlook my arrogance, I am ready and willing to be educated.
I dont mean any disrespect...I find sometimes by stirring the pot I get to the lesson in an issue faster.

Yeah, your "stirring the pot" must be why you're getting so many eager responses.

There are many paths to ER. In addition to the financial aspect, there has to be emotional comfort with the chosen method so that people can "sleep at night". If you've found a method that works for you then great. Run with it. But that does not make your way the only way, and using words like "insane" is not a convincing argument for your position.

If you're convinced that a certain method doesn't work, then you don't have to use it. But perhaps its effectiveness should be assessed on its entire record, not just its flaws or its personalities. (I think that using words like "insane" would also tend to make posters reluctant to engage in a discussion.) Even the flawed systems have their exceptions who have managed to make them work. For every aficionado of the efficient market hypothesis, there's a Warren Buffett. For people who claim buy & hold is dead, there's the Vanguard Diehards and "The Boglehead's Guide". For those who claim buy & hold is the only way, there's Gary Smith (author of "How I Trade For A Living") and Nicolas Darvas ("How I Made Two Million in the Stock Market").

You've clearly made up your mind. Long-time posters here have found that in this situation it's rarely worth their effort to try to change it for you. But you're welcome to keep reading and see if you run across something that may cause you to change your mind.

 

[REWahoo]

did you make your money from the market, or was that where you stashed money from a lucrative profession/business?

35% came from savings 65% from market growth.

were you in the financial industry?

No

did you beat 5% consistently in your market activities?

I'm not sure how you'd define "consistently", but I averaged 7.7% annual growth over a period of 26 years - excluding contributions.

 

[Kroeran]

Yeah, your "stirring the pot" must be why you're getting so many eager responses.

There are many paths to ER. In addition to the financial aspect, there has to be emotional comfort with the chosen method so that people can "sleep at night". If you've found a method that works for you then great. Run with it. But that does not make your way the only way, and using words like "insane" is not a convincing argument for your position.

If you're convinced that a certain method doesn't work, then you don't have to use it. But perhaps its effectiveness should be assessed on its entire record, not just its flaws or its personalities. (I think that using words like "insane" would also tend to make posters reluctant to engage in a discussion.) Even the flawed systems have their exceptions who have managed to make them work. For every aficionado of the efficient market hypothesis, there's a Warren Buffett. For people who claim buy & hold is dead, there's the Vanguard Diehards and "The Boglehead's Guide". For those who claim buy & hold is the only way, there's Gary Smith (author of "How I Trade For A Living") and Nicolas Darvas ("How I Made Two Million in the Stock Market").

You've clearly made up your mind. Long-time posters here have found that in this situation it's rarely worth their effort to try to change it for you. But you're welcome to keep reading and see if you run across something that may cause you to change your mind.

One of the things I remember from my trading period was the idea that its one thing to come up with a valid trading idea, its a totally different thing to execute it....pull the trigger when the system says to. Thats the problem with buy and hold....technically possible, but very few have the stomach to actually do it, and i just never met anyone who has.

I have met a handful of real estate millionaires, business owners, dot com cash outs, and CD saving maniacs, just never ran across a stock market millionaire in my limited travels, but I am in a government town.

I was thinking along the lines of trying to time the overall market as being delusional. That is not a consensus view in these here parts?

I guess very short term or day trading is a different animal altogether. I spent a decade of my life buried in supercharts programming searching for a tradable pattern. Very very addictive....and I guess I am still an addict.

I am thinking of getting back into it as a retirement hobby. A friend has convinced me he has come up with a very reliable tradable phenomena...I am looking into verifying this.

Speaking of pattern recognition...in my little world, I have come to see reliance on the stock market as a source of great pain for everyone involved in it. The seventies meltdown, the futures related collapse in the 80s I think it was? The dot com meltdown and now the latest bear market. Each round of this comes with changed retirement plans and most often selling out close to the bottom, embarassment, strained marriages. Trying to warn people from what I percieve to be a classic trap is part of my schtick.

 

[Kroeran]

I'm not sure how you'd define "consistently", but I averaged 7.7% annual growth over a period of 26 years - excluding contributions.

did you have any dark moments during that span where you were tempted to bail?

 

[Bestwifeever]

Question...have you actually met anyone who actually built up enough money through the market so that they could retire on it?

Yes.

And I also know people who have CD ladders that make up the bulk of their retirement income--my FIL was one of those.

As REWahoo said, isn't it great we can each choose the path that we believe will work for us.

 

[Texas Proud]

I have met a handful of real estate millionaires, business owners, dot com cash outs, and CD saving maniacs, just never ran across a stock market millionaire in my limited travels, but I am in a government town.
.

One of the problems is that some do not invest all in stock... but my mom has beat your 5% and is a buy and hold investor... heck, it is hard for me to get her to re-balance her portfolio.... I think the last time we did it was 3 or 4 years ago...

Except for a small account she allows me to trade for her... she has every individual stock she has bought.. Exxon and Texaco in the early 80s... she held on even when Texaco lost their $3B verdict... she mostly holds onto her mutual funds and we are able to withdrawal her yearly amount from different funds to get the balance more right...

Me... I can not say what I have, but I would be that over the 20 years you have given, I am up a 'compound' 5%... I am flat the last 5, but did very well the 15 before... and the last 5 were a big run up and a big crash...

 

[Kroeran]

Yes.

And I also know people who have CD ladders that make up the bulk of their retirement income--my FIL was one of those.

As REWahoo said, isn't it great we can each choose the path that we believe will work for us.

I guess one's approach to market exposure should take into account the time horizon for needing the money and the proportion of required spending coming from market investments.

In the pure case of a retired person 100% dependent on this income, AND who has a very thin discretionary income above spending on essentials, a 100% position in the markets would be ill-advised.

I think if a person builds in the assumption of 50% variability and 7% rate of return over the long run, they are closer to reality than assuming a 12% straight line up. The spouse has to be fully onside regarding hanging on during prolonged downturns. Personally, not sure why anyone would choose to live that way.

Well, maybe I do understand. Looking at your portfolio balance is fun and addictive, and this is a factor to consider. For myself, I manage this need by playing poker. Its cheaper to spend a couple of hours losing $20 at the table than gambling with my investments.

 

[Kroeran]

One of the problems is that some do not invest all in stock... but my mom has beat your 5% and is a buy and hold investor... heck, it is hard for me to get her to re-balance her portfolio.... I think the last time we did it was 3 or 4 years ago...

Except for a small account she allows me to trade for her... she has every individual stock she has bought.. Exxon and Texaco in the early 80s... she held on even when Texaco lost their $3B verdict... she mostly holds onto her mutual funds and we are able to withdrawal her yearly amount from different funds to get the balance more right...

Me... I can not say what I have, but I would be that over the 20 years you have given, I am up a 'compound' 5%... I am flat the last 5, but did very well the 15 before... and the last 5 were a big run up and a big crash...

I guess a family gets on a certain track and the spouse generally continues the formula set by the husband...at least for the previous "sexist" generation.

there is no question in my mind that the classic female disposition is more suited to buy and hold and not over fiddling...

I assume Mom has enough financial elbow room to not have to cut back on her premium cable when the markets are down.

looking back on your experience with the market, would you have done anything differently as overall approach...what advice do you give younger crowd in your clan.

 

[ERD50]

Is there anyone out there that can tell me with a straight face that they are up more than 5% yield compounded on the last 20 years?

DOW

7/8/09 8178.41

7/8/89 2,660.66 (cost basis adjusted for divs)

Gain: 3.0738

1.0575 ^ 20 years = 3.06; so ~> 5.75% annual gain.

What's so hard to believe? What would a CD ladder return be for the past 20 years?

-ERD50

 

[FUEGO]

I guess one's approach to market exposure should take into account the time horizon for needing the money and the proportion of required spending coming from market investments.

Do you think people on this board approach their asset allocation willy nilly with no regard to their personal situation?

In the pure case of a retired person 100% dependent on this income, AND who has a very thin discretionary income above spending on essentials, a 100% position in the markets would be ill-advised.

If the only way this person can survive long term is hoping a 100% equities portfolio will go up a lot, then I would say this is not an asset allocation mistake, it is merely an undercapitalized portfolio. They don't have enough money to retire.

 

[FUEGO]

wow!

lets say you want to be free at 50...does this mean you will shift 10% of your stake to fixed income each year?

will you be 100% dependent on your investment income at that point?

why do you want to retire early? what would you do with your retirement?

are there kids in the pipeline?

are you confident you will not face divorce?

I'm hoping to be free closer to 40. I haven't really figured out when I'll get into fixed income investments. And I probably will remain 70-80% invested in stocks when I do FIRE.

At that point I would be 100% dependent on investment income. Unless my portfolio value dropped substantially, then I would get a job. A couple decades after I FIRE, I may get some social security $$, but that doesn't factor significantly into the plan since it is not certain.

We already have 2 kids that will not quite be college age by the time I plan to ER. Divorce? No plans for that, but who really plans for that?? That could adversely impact my plans, but it would adversely impact anyone's plans I suppose. Luckily I have a good wife.

Why ER? What would I do all day? It would not involve punching a clock, sitting in a cubicle all day and working on TPF reports (my current task here). Trust me when I say I would have no problem filling up my weeks with an additional 50 hours of leisure time if work was not a requirement. I have hobbies, other interests, desire to travel, and intellectual pursuits that would easily fill up my time. If they don't I can always go get a job if I get reaaaaaally bored. Heck I may even do a little part time consulting on the side if conditions are right.

Kroeran, I'm not sure why you are skeptical of us who invest in the stock market and plan on the long term returns funding a sufficient stream of income to allow early retirement. The standard assumption is one can withdraw 4% of a portfolio each year in retirement and have a high degree of safety and minimal portfolio failures. Would a 3% annual withdrawal make you more comfortable? How about a 2% withdrawal? At some point in the 2-3% range the dividends from the portfolio will more than cover the withdrawal rate, and there is a reasonable assumption that the stocks held in the portfolio would grow at least at the rate of inflation, hence funding withdrawals in perpetuity. What particular point of this logic do you disagree with? Do you agree that a sufficiently large portfolio invested mainly in equities would provide a wide enough margin of safety to allow one to feel reasonably confident taking an early retirement?

 

[Kroeran]

1.0575 ^ 20 years = 3.06; so ~> 5.75% annual gain.

What's so hard to believe? What would a CD ladder return be for the past 20 years?

seems like a lot of worry and risk for a small yield gain

 

[Kroeran]

Do you think people on this board approach their asset allocation willy nilly with no regard to their personal situation?

I don't mean to insult the intelligence of persons on the board

partly, I am trying to calibrate the level of sophistication on the board and then see if something unexpected comes back that makes sense, checks out, and tweeks my philosophy

partly, I am trying to refresh my awareness of market issues, questioning myself. Its been a while since I considered this stuff. I don't think I have ever been in a situation where I could discuss it with informed, intelligent, and experienced company, such as exists here.

My mom's portfolio, because of mandatory withdrawals from a registered plan, is going to start building an unsheltered pool that will need to find a home.

Based on my discussions here, I was able to recognize the value of the VG Wellington fund article in todays WSJ...and I was startled by their 30 yr average yield, which was 11.5%.

When I start to consider after-tax CD return, given a 10 year planning horizon and not relying on it for income, maybe putting the money in such a fund may make sense for this situation.

At 80, Wellington Still Going Strong - WSJ.com

I would also have the entertainment of looking up the value every couple of hours. ; - )

 

[Kroeran]

Kroeran, I'm not sure why you are skeptical of us who invest in the stock market and plan on the long term returns funding a sufficient stream of income to allow early retirement. The standard assumption is one can withdraw 4% of a portfolio each year in retirement and have a high degree of safety and minimal portfolio failures. Would a 3% annual withdrawal make you more comfortable? How about a 2% withdrawal? At some point in the 2-3% range the dividends from the portfolio will more than cover the withdrawal rate, and there is a reasonable assumption that the stocks held in the portfolio would grow at least at the rate of inflation, hence funding withdrawals in perpetuity. What particular point of this logic do you disagree with? Do you agree that a sufficiently large portfolio invested mainly in equities would provide a wide enough margin of safety to allow one to feel reasonably confident taking an early retirement?

Well, for me personally, the uncertainty would drive me crazy, given at any point the market might tank, and then spending a few years wondering if it will go back up. One day, it might not...or not in time. I realise this is counter to the prevailing faith.

There was another fellow who mentioned that a good strategy was to convert to annities just the amount you need for essentials, then leave the rest with the markets or CDs. That makes sense to me. Of course, its a bad time for annuities just at the moment I guess - but if there was a short term freakish interest rate spike in the next five years...that would be the time to strike.

If I move back into the markets, it would be with non-essential money. As we are all up to our ears and way over water with indexed pensions with my team, I think the market makes more sense for me than many, actually.

The main downside for me would be DW looking at me like I am an idiot when the market goes down...well, I guess she does that anyway

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50
1.0575 ^ 20 years = 3.06; so ~> 5.75% annual gain.

What's so hard to believe? What would a CD ladder return be for the past 20 years?

seems like a lot of worry and risk for a small yield gain

Maybe, but to compare I would still need to know what a CD ladder would do over the same time. And you are mentioning this at a time when the index is 30% or more down from its peak, other 20-year periods may look better (or not, I'd have to look).

If I look at the 5 or 10-year T-Notes (^FVX ^TNX) I see that yields are down to about half of what they were in 1989. So, if you are living off the yield versus the gains/divs of a stock index fund is there really such a difference between the stock index being down 40%, and the yield on the bonds/CDs being down 40%?

I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other - people should do what they are comfortable with. I would just suggest that you don't ignore the risk that is in fixed investments - the risk of losing out to inflation. Hmmm, a firecalc run with:

$35K spend, $1M portfolio, 40 year time frame says:

75% Eq = 97% success
100% 5 year Treas = 28% success.

All the fixed income options gave about the same result. And, if I'm following the squiggly lines correctly, it looks like the odds of hitting zero earlier with the fixed income is also higher. Trading away that stock market volatility comes with a price (as one should expect).


-ERD50

 

[FUEGO]

The main downside for me would be DW looking at me like I am an idiot when the market goes down...well, I guess she does that anyway

But if she looks at you like you are an idiot when the market goes down and you are invested, wouldn't she look at you like an idiot if it went up a lot and you were not invested in it at all? How long would it take for her to hear about everyone else who doubled the value in their RRSP's/IRA's/401k in five years before she asks you why you are wasting away your joint assets in fixed investments that are barely beating inflation? Maybe your DW has unrealistic expectations about money management. At the least, it certainly sounds like she is risk averse if she could not stomach a 30% drop in investment values in your long term investments. Investing in equities is probably not for her.

When I told the DW we lost 36% last year and that equates to over one year's gross income for us, she just said, "that's horrible but one of the risks we take by owning a lot of equities investments, and the market will come back some day". She doesn't really pay attention to our investments, but understands that what we are doing has significant volatility but typically pays nice rewards in the end (with patience).

 

[Texas Proud]

I guess a family gets on a certain track and the spouse generally continues the formula set by the husband...at least for the previous "sexist" generation.

there is no question in my mind that the classic female disposition is more suited to buy and hold and not over fiddling...

I assume Mom has enough financial elbow room to not have to cut back on her premium cable when the markets are down.

looking back on your experience with the market, would you have done anything differently as overall approach...what advice do you give younger crowd in your clan.

Well, that was not my dads way.... before he had a big family, he traded and lost... so he only went into CDs when they had money (most of my life, we had NO savings... zip, zero... it was only after all the kids left and my mom started to work did they start to save)....

My mom grew up during the depression... that is where she got formula....

There was a time she wanted to change... when my brother was making money like crazy during the dot com days... but I told her it is better to be diversified.... so she stuck with it and it has worked...

Also, she is a LBYM person that would make most people on this board look like spendthrifts... I try to get her to spend more, but she just does not care to do it.... no premium cable, heck, she just got cable because it comes with the condo she bought... she lives on her SS and a small pension... and a small amount from her investments...


My recommendation.... save at minimum 10% of your salary... preferrably 15% to 20%... starting from your first job... if you get into that habit, you can keep it... Invest in what you feel comfortable.... but do take some risks if you want to get a decent return over the long haul....

If someone young was planning on making it with CDs and private lending.... they would be sorry when it came time to retire... if they were doing that to fund their retirement, then it sounds like a good source of current income with not as big of downside as the stock market...

 

[calmloki]

But if she looks at you like you are an idiot when the market goes down and you are invested, wouldn't she look at you like an idiot if it went up a lot and you were not invested in it at all? How long would it take for her to hear about everyone else who doubled the value in their RRSP's/IRA's/401k in five years before she asks you why you are wasting away your joint assets in fixed investments that are barely beating inflation? Maybe your DW has unrealistic expectations about money management. At the least, it certainly sounds like she is risk averse if she could not stomach a 30% drop in investment values in your long term investments. Investing in equities is probably not for her.

When I told the DW we lost 36% last year and that equates to over one year's gross income for us, she just said, "that's horrible but one of the risks we take by owning a lot of equities investments, and the market will come back some day". She doesn't really pay attention to our investments, but understands that what we are doing has significant volatility but typically pays nice rewards in the end (with patience).

Count me and my gal in the risk adverse camp. Not really counting on CDs or savings rate interest to provide for us in our dotage either. Not when we can loan out money in the 10-12% range on properties that WE value at somewhere around double the amount we loan. Down side? when it comes time for the loan balloon to be paid off the borrower can't find other financing. In that case we can either keep taking payments (maybe upping the interest rate?) or foreclose. We're trying to back out of real estate, so getting another chunk of property may not be as attractive as getting our cash back, but it beats buying a market giant like GM or Enron or Rath Packing at the wrong moment.

A big advantage of stock is the ability to sell it for some price at almost any time. Loans or land are much more difficult to divest. Maybe that forces a certain deliberate nature to the transactions, which could be a good thing.

BTW, someone said something like "trust everyone or no-one, it all works out the same". Not real sure what that means, but unlike Kroeran i trust everyone means to do what they say and is not trying to cheat me. While i trust they mean what they say i don't count on them accomplishing what they say. Stuff happens.

 

[Kroeran]

All the fixed income options gave about the same result. And, if I'm following the squiggly lines correctly, it looks like the odds of hitting zero earlier with the fixed income is also higher. Trading away that stock market volatility comes with a price (as one should expect).

I don't really understand why one would purchase a note or bond when you can a get 4-5% CD FDIC/CDIC insured, unless you are playing with a lot of zeros. I think going rate (best at CD brokers) up here is still 4%.

The thing about fixed income is that you can have a plan and know where you will be, with a very high degree of certainty.

Stock market returns are a play on probabilities and past performance. To have a comfortable margin for error, I would think you would want to target 2* projected living expenses, which means you may have to be overcapitalized compared to what you would need under a fixed income plan.

To correctly project your plan, you would have to walk your strategy forward through history, and see where you would end up using different windows of time, consider the worst case scenarios (which are predicted by the data) and adjust strategy/expectations.

I guess one of the messages is to build in buffers...like maybe doing some contract or self employed work during a transitionary period or some sort of reverse mortgage on the house in a worst case scenario.

One of my neighbours in Florida is a retired teacher from the North. He got his real estate liscense and made more money doing that in a few years of the boom than his entire teaching career. It is not a burden to him. It gets him out of the house meeting people.

Another self employment story - A struggling screen writer fellow I know picked up his real estate liscense and started operating in Santa Barbara. Not your typical agent - very mellow self actualized guy and popular with the rich divorcees. Within a couple of years he was doing multimillion dollar deals and hiring assistants.

I have this idea I am going to be a yacht broker when I finally pull the plug. It will give me a card to hand out at parties and an identity...rather than being a "retired guy". Don't care if I actually sell any damn yachts.