Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-22-2015, 06:33 PM   #61
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatordoc50 View Post
... I think they make a very strong case that future returns will be muted compared to historic returns. ...
Not an unreasonable assumption, IMO.

However, you need to consider if that really means anything relative to a FIRECalc run...

Quote:
IOWs, using historic returns to determine your SWR going forward may lead to increased failures. Since that is what I believe, I would not increase my SWR after a good year just because rerunning firecalc gives me a successful result.
So here's the thing - a historical tool like FIRECalc will point out how you would fare in the very worst periods. For the most part, we ignore the averages. I see very few posts making reference to the averages reported by FIRECalc, usually only when they are making some statistical observation.

Averages really aren't that relevant. The real question is: Will the future be worse than the worst of what is in the historical data set? Worse than the Great Depression? Worse than the inflationary 80's?

I'd be ecstatic if future returns are muted compared to historic returns. Look at the distribution of results in a FIRECalc chart with a conservative WR - it's tough to eyeball, but I'd estimate that roughly 3/4 of them end up with more than they started with. So 'muted' returns would eat into that a bit, but unless the future is worse than the past worst case, there will still be no added failures. And 'muted' means we succeed- it would take 'horrific' to add failures.

Of course, we could get 'horrific', no Crystal Ball.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 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 03-22-2015, 07:41 PM   #62
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Marco island
Posts: 813
Some gurus have pointed out the need to distinguish between SWRs computed via historic calculators and those calculated via Monte Carlo calculators using expected returns. Maybe SWRh? Bernstein wrote a series of articles on Efficient Frontier where he pulled out a 30 year historic cycle that he felt most closely resembled the present. He chose 1966 to 95. It is pretty interesting. The Retirement Calculator from Hell.
http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/998/hell.htm

"Although historical market analogizing can be both embarrassing and dangerous to one's wealth, this market looks an awful lot like 1966. It would behoove anybody with an investment horizon stretching another 30 years to consider the 1966-95 as a useful reality check. "
The other 4 articles expand on the subject a little. The article was written in 2001. I believe his present expected returns are even more bearish.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
__________________

__________________
Gatordoc50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2015, 07:49 PM   #63
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatordoc50 View Post
Some gurus have pointed out the need to distinguish between SWRs computed via historic calculators and those calculated via Monte Carlo calculators using expected returns. Maybe SWRh? Bernstein wrote a series of articles on Efficient Frontier where he pulled out a 30 year historic cycle that he felt most closely resembled the present. He chose 1966 to 95. It is pretty interesting. The Retirement Calculator from Hell.
DATAQUEST

"Although historical market analogizing can be both embarrassing and dangerous to one's wealth, this market looks an awful lot like 1966. It would behoove anybody with an investment horizon stretching another 30 years to consider the 1966-95 as a useful reality check. "
The other 4 articles expand on the subject a little. The article was written in 2001. I believe his present expected returns are even more bearish.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
If the prediction was to start the 1966 clock in 2001, it was way off the mark. We've recovered from the 1973/4 crash and haven't gone into hyper inflation (yet). That's the problem with trying to predict the future. It hasn't happened yet.

I'm waiting for pb4uski to put up the graph showing me wrong.
__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane -- Marcus Aurelius
2B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2015, 08:05 PM   #64
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Marco island
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2B View Post
If the prediction was to start the 1966 clock in 2001, it was way off the mark. We've recovered from the 1973/4 crash and haven't gone into hyper inflation (yet). That's the problem with trying to predict the future. It hasn't happened yet.

I'm waiting for pb4uski to put up the graph showing me wrong.

That would be cool to see a 2001 to 2015 graph next to 1966 to 1980 in real terms. You think it's way off? The last 5 plus years have been amazing with low inflation but the first nine plus weren't too hot.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
Gatordoc50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2015, 08:22 PM   #65
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatordoc50 View Post
Some gurus have pointed out the need to distinguish between SWRs computed via historic calculators and those calculated via Monte Carlo calculators using expected returns. Maybe SWRh? Bernstein wrote a series of articles on Efficient Frontier where he pulled out a 30 year historic cycle that he felt most closely resembled the present. He chose 1966 to 95. It is pretty interesting. The Retirement Calculator from Hell.
DATAQUEST

"Although historical market analogizing can be both embarrassing and dangerous to one's wealth, this market looks an awful lot like 1966. It would behoove anybody with an investment horizon stretching another 30 years to consider the 1966-95 as a useful reality check."
What on earth?

The quote you picked above in red is in the context of Bernstein's opening assumption in blue below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retirement Calculator from Hell
Most of you have seen the nifty retirement software available from the likes of Vanguard and T. Rowe Price which provides the mathematical muscle to help you plan your retirement. Input your retirement age, expected lifespan, required annual income, rate of inflation and investment return, and hey presto, you find out that to avoid a golden years diet of Alpo you need the GDP of the average Central American republic.

These calculators all make the same erroneous assumption -- that your expected rate of return is the same each and every year. In other words, let's assume that the real (inflation adjusted ) rate of return of the S&P 500 will be 7% in the future. You might conclude that you can withdraw an inflation adjusted $70,000 of your $1,000,000 Vanguard Index Trust 500 IRA each and every year indefinitely, and maintain yourself with the same real income in the long run. And you'd be wrong.
FIRECALC most certainly does NOT assume a 'rate of return the same each and every year' or a 'real (inflation adjusted) rate of return of 7% for the S&P 500' - that's a preposterous assumption frankly.

And the Calculator from Hell article you linked us to also notes a 4% WR was successful during this horrible period - very much like the results you'd get from FIRECALC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retirement Calculator from Hell
Only at $40,000 (4% of the initial amount) withdrawal rates do things look a little less grim. All strategies holding 50% or greater stock survive the 30 year period. However, even this route was one wild ride.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg image.jpg (202.2 KB, 10 views)
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2015, 08:30 PM   #66
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Marco island
Posts: 813
You are so he'll bent on starting a fight that you aren't even reading the article before hammering down. Read it again.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
Gatordoc50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2015, 08:32 PM   #67
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: 16,411
Interesting thread. To me, 100% means that under the worst case scenario available based on the past, my plan succeeds... which in turn means that there are lots of scenarios that are quite likely where I could have spent much more and still been solvent.

The principal worry most of us have is spending too much and running out of money sufficient to provide for our target lifestyle. However, I am almost equally worried about the inverse... that I will be too conservative now while I am younger and have the energy to travel and enjoy our wealth and will ultimately end up with too much money late in life where I don't have the energy to enjoy it so it goes to charity or the kids. Not that money going to charity or our kids is tragic, but I will wonder or lament that perhaps I should have replaced that older but still good vehicle earlier with one that I would have enjoyed more, or traveled more, or taken DW and our kids on that trip we all cherish in our memories, or whatever.

My thinking is that any of these projection tools is only forward looking... they don't really know whether I worked for the last 3 years or was retired for the last 3 years. So in theory, if at any given point in time I adjust my spending upward but limit the increase so I still have a 100% success rate for my given time horizon, then there probably isn't a lot bad that can happen, especially since I have the flexibility to tighten my belt if needed.

So my plan is to revisit my spending level every few years as if I am retiring anew, and if the tools suggest that I can spend more, then I'll increase my spending and splurge/enjoy a bit more, if not then I'll stay the course and reassess in a few more years. I think this approach will still ensure that I don't run out of money as much as anyone can without an awesome crystal ball while at the same time allowing more spending where prudent and reducing potential second thoughts later in life.

However, I like the idea of once I am 70 or so and our pensions and SS are on line of just using an RMD approach if there is enough flexibility in my spending to do so, or perhaps RMD after a 20% haircut (or something like that).
__________________
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 03-22-2015, 08:35 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: 16,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2B View Post
...I'm waiting for pb4uski to put up the graph showing me wrong.
A guy can't even take a weekend off without causing or getting in trouble.
__________________
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 03-22-2015, 08:46 PM   #69
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatordoc50 View Post
... It would behoove anybody with an investment horizon stretching another 30 years to consider the 1966-95 as a useful reality check. " ...
Isn't that exactly what FIRECalc and other historical reports do?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2015, 08:48 PM   #70
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: 16,457
I'm also an inverse worrier. Which is why I don't reinvest funds I don't happen to spend in a given year. I'd rather find a way to spend them soon - in the next few years.
__________________
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 03-22-2015, 09:19 PM   #71
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Isn't that exactly what FIRECalc and other historical reports do?

-ERD50
Yes - but that's not the point of that statement. The point is that he believes that period is most representative of our current conditions. So if you were to pick any one of the output graphs of Firecalc, the one starting at 1966 would be most like what he believes 2015-2045 would look like.

Everyone is so conservative here because the downside risk of running out of money is so much greater than the upside risk of having too much left over when we croak.

If we were penalized equally in both cases - like getting poked in the eyes with a sharp stick if we had too much money left over right before we die, then this discussion would be quite different. If that were the case, of course people would be adjusting distribution amounts the closer they got to their death - the planning horizon would be way shorter and guesses about the future would be more accurate. If I'm 85 and drooling with $10M socked away it's pretty likely I'm not going to be spending that down without trying pretty damn hard to do so.
__________________
liberty53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2015, 09:28 PM   #72
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,401
In that Bernstein article, he compared the approach for drawing a fixed COLA'd percentage of the initial portfolio value vs. drawing a fixed percentage of the present value.

He concluded:

If you can be more flexible and spend a fixed percentage of your nest egg each year, then you can indeed keep you entire retirement stash in stocks and spend 5% annually. Just remember that your stipend will likely fluctuate wildly over the decades of your retirement. Keep a few cans of Alpo in the cupboard if you decide to go this route.

The above is not at all surprising. What happened is that in the past, a portfolio could drop 50% or more without you drawing anything. So, if you draw a fixed percentage, if your portfolio is halved, can you live on less than 1/2 the dollar amount of the previous year expenses?

I guess I can do it, but it is going to be very hard. My discretionary spending is high, but it is not 50% of the total.

On the other hand, if you draw a percentage of the initial porfolio value, you would build up reserve during good years. It is so that during bad years, you can maintain the same expenses. Your percentage relative to present portfolio may be high, but not as high as it would be if you have upped your spending and now have problems throttling back.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2015, 09:57 PM   #73
Full time employment: Posting here.
gcgang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by letsquit View Post
Is it legitimate to recalculate my maximum safe withdrawal over time, and increase it when the market is good? Do I have to decrease it when the market is bad, or does my original calculation remain safe even when the market drops over time? Thanks.

Yes, it is legit to recalculate. When markets go up, you can increase WR, or decrease risk and have the same success rate.

When market is bad, either decrease WR or go for higher returns if you are comfortable with the risk.

It should be similar to having an annual physical.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. YB
gcgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 07:17 AM   #74
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatordoc50 View Post
You are so he'll bent on starting a fight that you aren't even reading the article before hammering down. Read it again.
I'd suggest you read the article again, but I refrained from suggesting that in my earlier reply out of courtesy to you.

Again, the quote you cherry picked out refers to calculators that assumed 7% real rates return and/or linear returns - nothing at all like FIRECALC. He then picks a bad period, a good illustration, and shows how 7%, 6% and 5% inflation adjusted withdrawals all failed in less than 30 years. However, 4% was successful, just as the Trinity Study showed and just as FIRECALC results show. He then shows 7% and 5% of remaining portfolio also fail.

Note this passage in the article you choose, that follows the one you've chosen to use out of context:
Quote:
One point cannot be made often enough -- when you retire, are you going to be withdrawing a fixed inflation adjusted amount on a regular basis, or are you going to be withdrawing a fixed percentage of your portfolio? This is not a semantic fine point. If you need a fixed amount, plan on withdrawing no more than about 4% of your starting amount in inflation adjusted terms. A fair dollop of bonds won't hurt in this situation.
No one here who knows anything about SWR studies or FIRECALC would be surprised that only 4% was successful over a bad 30 year period vs the other scenarios above.

It am sure it's not deliberate, but you're simply misleading people, and your examples as to why FIRECALC has "problems" and your examples of why conditions are different now are also easily contradicted with a cursory look at the history underlying FIRECALC. I just hope other members can see that.

But I wish you well, honestly...
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 08:37 AM   #75
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Marco island
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
I'd suggest you read the article again, but I refrained from suggesting that in my earlier reply out of courtesy to you.

Again, the quote you cherry picked out refers to calculators that assumed 7% real rates return and/or linear returns - nothing at all like FIRECALC. He then picks a bad period, a good illustration, and shows how 7%, 6% and 5% inflation adjusted withdrawals all failed in less than 30 years. However, 4% was successful, just as the Trinity Study showed and just as FIRECALC results show. He then shows 7% and 5% of remaining portfolio also fail.

Note this passage in the article you choose, that follows the one you've chosen to use out of context:


No one here who knows anything about SWR studies or FIRECALC would be surprised that only 4% was successful over a bad 30 year period vs the other scenarios above.

It am sure it's not deliberate, but you're simply misleading people, and your examples as to why FIRECALC has "problems" and your examples of why conditions are different now are also easily disproven by a cursory look at the history underlying FIRECALC. I just hope other members can see that.

But I wish you well, honestly...
Congratulations, you win. My suggestion, however, to the OP remains the same. I gave him the same answer I would give my brother or sister. That valuations are high, interest rates are low and future returns are expected by some experts to be lower than historic returns. So, not only would I not ratchet up my SWR five plus years into this bull market but I might even go back a few years and use that portfolio value to calculate my SWR. Clearly, everyone here disagrees. That's ok with me. I do wish the discussion was more civil. Did you see where Vanguards Target Date funds are decreasing their US equity and bond allocations in favor of international equities and bonds? I find that interesting.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
Gatordoc50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 09:10 AM   #76
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatordoc50 View Post
... So, not only would I not ratchet up my SWR five plus years into this bull market but I might even go back a few years and use that portfolio value to calculate my SWR. Clearly, everyone here disagrees. ....
You are creating a straw-man argument. Stating that 'everybody disagrees' simply isn't true and it doesn't make you some sort of misunderstood martyr.

Many people choose to be more conservative than a straight historical run indicates. Because we can't predict the future.

But that is different than interpreting the historical results. You absolutely can ratchet up on the market peaks and maintain 100% success within that reported data. It is a fact. Whether you choose to do so is separate from that, and many won't increase their spending (I won't say 'all' or 'none').

Quote:
... I do wish the discussion was more civil. ...
The only less than civil comment I see here was from you: You are so he'll bent on starting a fight...

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 09:18 AM   #77
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatordoc50 View Post
Congratulations, you win. My suggestion, however, to the OP remains the same. I gave him the same answer I would give my brother or sister. That valuations are high, interest rates are low and future returns are expected by some experts to be lower than historic returns. So, not only would I not ratchet up my SWR five plus years into this bull market but I might even go back a few years and use that portfolio value to calculate my SWR. Clearly, everyone here disagrees. That's ok with me. I do wish the discussion was more civil.
Sorry, it was an unfortunate exchange after all, I wasn't hoping to win anything.

In the end, like many here I agree with you WRT being more conservative with withdrawals than FIRECALC results, and maybe should have left it at that. I simply disagreed with attempts to mischaracterize FIRECALC and the underlying market history it's based on, out of concern for newer members. Cheers...
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 09:36 AM   #78
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Marco island
Posts: 813
He came at me first with the colored pencils. Isn't that like drawing a sword?


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
Gatordoc50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 09:43 AM   #79
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatordoc50 View Post
That would be cool to see a 2001 to 2015 graph next to 1966 to 1980 in real terms. You think it's way off? The last 5 plus years have been amazing with low inflation but the first nine plus weren't too hot.
If anyone following this thread doesn't know already, the 1966 to 1996 is the worst 30 year period in the FireCalc database. If your run has one failure it's safe to say it is this one. We had a crushing market drop in the early 1970s as the Arab Oil Embargo kicked in. The stock market languished and inflation went wild. Only those of us in the oil and energy industries prospered. The stock market didn't really come back until the great oil bust of the 1980s. By then, it was too late to save many mythical and real retirement plans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
I'm also an inverse worrier. Which is why I don't reinvest funds I don't happen to spend in a given year. I'd rather find a way to spend them soon - in the next few years.
This year, being year 1, has me pondering this question. I really don't expect to have too much left over since I'll get an income tax bill almost twice what I am expecting going forward due to my large SERP lump sum. I'm debating whether I "deserve" an extra withdrawal to cover this or not. Going forward I expect to be challenged to get DW to travel as much as I would like. We've done a pretty good job of getting our basic living expenses down to where my small pensions and eventual SS will cover it. My biggest risk appears to be the insatiable appetite the State of Texas has for property tax. It is my single largest budget item.
__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane -- Marcus Aurelius
2B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 09:50 AM   #80
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
You are creating a straw-man argument. Stating that 'everybody disagrees' simply isn't true and it doesn't make you some sort of misunderstood martyr.

Many people choose to be more conservative than a straight historical run indicates. Because we can't predict the future.
Fight!

I'm all for lively exchanges. I think it's good we challenge the various "givens" some people have. I don't think there is a right answer to most of these discussions.

Personally, I'm targeting to be more aggressive than the historical data. It's not that I have some crystal ball that says the market will perform on the high side during my retirement. I'm aggressive now because I can comfortably live on much less than I believe I can safely spend following a 95% SWR and don't expect to have as much interest in spending weeks vacationing when I'm in my mid-80s.
__________________

__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane -- Marcus Aurelius
2B is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Maximum 401(k) contribution rises to $17,000 in 2012 Helen FIRE and Money 11 11-13-2011 06:01 PM
OPEC Increases Quotas, Crude Oil Price Rises haha FIRE and Money 0 09-11-2007 02:16 PM
Dollar rises, profits fall...? Caroline FIRE and Money 2 06-14-2005 05:57 PM
Online Survey Marketing--B.S. or Legit? Tommy_Dolitte Young Dreamers 3 10-12-2004 03:11 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:25 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.