Hi All:

I want to build a 100% equity, with about 40% foreign. Is the following a good mix? How about the quality of the funds?

20% TIAA-CREF Growth & Income Fund - Retirement Class
20% TIAA-CREF International Equity Fund - Retirement Class
40% TIAA-CREF Mid-Cap Value Fund - Retirement Class
20% TIAA-CREF Mid-Cap Blend Index Fund - Retirement Class

I can purchase all the Mutual Funds - Retirement Class and also the CREF Variable Annuity. I can only invest in TIAA in this retirement account. Thanks for your comments.

Zipper

Zipper,

I am not able to answer your questions directly, as I have never been invested in the funds that you mention.

You may find it beneficial to access Paul Merriman's mutual fund site:

www.fundadvice.com

This site contains many useful articles about investing in retirement, and specifically addresses the topic of asset allocation for a diversified all-equity portfolio.  There are several suggested portfolios mentioned.  I tried to access the site this afternoon, but was unsuccessful, as it is apparently down temporarily.

Jared

Not in my personal opinion.

You apparently are aware the mid-cap funds are doing well now, particularly the mid-cap blend index fund (which I own). But you are too concentrated in mid cap in particular and large cap to a lesser degree. Small caps are down most currently but historically they perform better than large and mid-cap; whether they will do so in the future remains to be seen.

I am not a Diehard but I have swung around to the view the investing in low cost index funds is probably the most efficient way to go. You have a start with a good one, TRMBX. Give some thought to going with Large Cap index funds and at least one small cap one. Then if you want to over weight large cap you can use the Growth and Income fund though I personally do not do that.

At some point you probably should add some real estae, either the TIAA Real Estate Account (doing very poorly right now) or the Real Estate Securities mutual fund.

Also eventually you might consider raising your International holdings to more than 20%. 

Ray 

Thanks a lot for the website from Jared and the post from Ray.

I have a lot of  funds in the  TIAA Real Estate Account and Stock Account... I am considering to move some (or all) to the mutual funds. I just realized I can invest in the mutual funds now.  Here s my future percentage based upon the two posts above:

10.00%		TIAA-CREF Growth & Income Fund - Retirement Class
5.00%		TIAA-CREF Real Estate Securities Fund - Retirement Class
30.00%		TIAA-CREF International Equity Fund - Retirement Class
25.00%		TIAA-CREF Mid-Cap Value Fund - Retirement Class
15.00%		TIAA-CREF Large-Cap Value Index Fund - Retirement Class
15.00%		TIAA-CREF Small-Cap Equity Fund - Retirement Class

Thanks a lot. Please let me know if this is a good start. I think now I have 25% LC, 25 MC, 15% SC, 30% Foreign, and 5% Real Estate Securities mutual fund. I can not purchase Equity Index Fund- that was the reason I just use Growth and Income. Any other comments before I sell my CREF Variable Annuity Accounts?

Also, shall I keep CREF Variable Annuity Accounts any way? The only thing bother me is it is not easy to put the CREF Variable Annuity Accounts into MorningStar. Thanks a lot Ray and Jared.

Zipper

.

Zipper,

How in the world did you get the colored blocks in your post!?!?!

What VAs do you presently hold? I would certainly keep some money in the REA.

I have watched the Mid-Cap Value Fund in the past and it indeed has done well but currently the only Mid-Cap I hold is the Mid-Cap Blend Index fund which I believe you said you do presently own; I would favor it over the value fund but this is a personal choice.

Just watch your ERs; you have chosen to go with the actively managed funds over the Index version and that works for a while but I am not sure it is a profitable long-term strategy.

Ray 

I have a lot of  funds in the  TIAA Real Estate Account and Stock Account...  Here s my future percentage based upon the two posts above:

10.00%		TIAA-CREF Growth & Income Fund - Retirement Class
5.00%		TIAA-CREF Real Estate Securities Fund - Retirement Class
30.00%		TIAA-CREF International Equity Fund - Retirement Class
25.00%		TIAA-CREF Mid-Cap Value Fund - Retirement Class
15.00%		TIAA-CREF Large-Cap Value Index Fund - Retirement Class
15.00%		TIAA-CREF Small-Cap Equity Fund - Retirement Class

[/quote]

 Why would you replace the TIAA Real Estate Account with the TIAA-CREF Real Estate Securities Fund?

While REA is only up 0.65% for the year while RESF is up  5.22%, the one year returns are REA up 9.17% vs RESF down 13.54%.  Are you planning to swap back and forth every quarter depending on the most recent returns of the two?  I don't see the advantage of the RESF.

Zipper,

I was able to access the Merriman site this morning.  Basically, he recommends that equities be diversified in a proper balance of  large cap vs. small cap, growth vs. value, and domestic vs. international funds.  In my opinion, your mix would meet these criteria, with the possible exception of not having representation in the small cap value area.  If you wanted, you could use the Small Cap Vaue Index fund to fill in this gap, but I don't really think it's all that important.

I'm assuming that you have thought out your 100% equities strategy carefully, and that it is consistent with your risk tolerance.  When I began my university career, I started with a 75% equities allocation, and then switched to 100% equities until I was a few years from retirement.  At that point, I scaled back to an approximate 50% equity allocation.  Since retirement, however, I've become much more risk averse, and have preferred to invest in funds with less volatility, such as the TIAA Real Estate Account.

Good luck to you!

Jared

Zipper, I agree with Ray's first post.  It's not fair to you for me to read between the lines of just a post or two, but there's something you're not telling us.  I mean, about how you came up with these choices.  If you are eligible to buy TIAA Real Estate Account, your choice of the Real Estate Securities mutual fund is inexplicable.  My read is that you're making choices because of the difficulty of getting frequent M* readouts on TIAA Real Estate Account and the variable annuities.  That is irritating, but it hasn't stopped lots of people from having comfortable retirements with them.

I'm really afraid that you are planning to do a lot of swapping, not just annual rebalancing to the same allocation for a few years.  Have you considered the CREF Stock Variable Annuity as a one-stop choice for almost all of your actual equities?

I'd feel better if you told us what you would do in a year when a 100% Equity allocation goes down 20% or more. Can you keep your hands off?  Referring to your subject line, I don't agree that 100% Equities is appropriate in retirement, even for someone who has more than he needs to retire.  Are you retired? Have you taken the TIAA-CREF asset allocation online questionnaire?

Are you aware that CREF Stock VA is 75% US, 22% diversified International, and 3% Emerging Markets?  This is a great mix, even if it leaves you with "nothing to talk about at cocktail parties". (Don't take that personally - I just mean that it's a one-stop decision!)

Tim

Zipper,

When the future is past, it's easy to know exactly what to do.

When the future is present, we think and hope we know what to do.

When the future is in the future, we can't honestly know what to do.

So; spread your bets out on as many choices that are different from each other, and make certain that at least one choice seems guaranteed.

No one can prove you wrong, and no one can prove you right.

Best of luck, (that's not just an expression),

Sy  

Zipper, I agree with Tim about CREF Stock and TIAA Real Estate.  I once sliced and diced but was never really sure about what I was doing.  Rebalancing became a chore and I sought simplicity.  I now only hold TIAA Traditional, TIAA Real Estate and CREF Stock. 

My investment life is now simpler and I give much less thought to my investments.  I read less of the investment porn that once made me constantly question myself.  Some like the game but I found peace. Good luck regardless of the road you choose.

Mike

Mike is right of course about the simplicity and thoroughness of the coverage across size and geography provided by the Stock Account. I used it as the core of my T-C holdings for at least 25 of the 32 year of my accumulation stage with T-C. However, there is a cost and this is the higher ER that it carries. In comparison to the ERs associated with the Retirement Class Index funds (for the most part, there are a few exceptions), the ERs with them are currently about $0.22 less than that of the Stock Account. The significance of this depends on the individual investor.

Another factor to consider is the the "slice and dice" approach is said to produce at least the same performance return a total stock market account (the Stock Account approaches being a total global account) with less volatility (smaller standard deviation); I believe Larry Swedroe has stated this at various times in various sources. 

My guess is Mike is aware of this and chooses to pay the "price." Others may come to a different conclusion. There are as many have said, "many roads to Dublin" and no particular is necessarily better than the other for everyone. It is a personal choice. At this point in my investing career I tend to go with the slice and dice approach. 

Ray 

Ray,

I also prefer the simple model of holding Traditional, CREF stock, and RE. The Ibbotson review recommended a slice-and-dice approach, which I rejected because the standard deviation was much higher than my current portfolio projections and because I have no interest in watching and juggling 20-30 funds. There is also no way that I'll limit my RE holdings to 3%, which was the Ibbotson recommendation. And for the record, my WMA supports my current portfolio allocation decisions, and he personally holds almost as much RE as do I.

Henry

Henry,

I never had the Ibotson analysis done for me because I have had no interest in it. I do not believe there is one portfolio that fits all. I do, however, believe that a well crafted slice and dice portfolio probably does provide the lower SD that I attributed to Larry S.

As you most likely know until a year ago I had two holdings in my T-C investments which at the time were probably about 95% of our investments - the REA and the Traditional. Since then I have moved a sizable amount of money out of T-C to fund an inheritance account invested in a combination of DFA funds and Treasury/Agency bonds (mostly TIPS). If it had not been for this decision I would have remained invested in the REA and the Traditional. So I am sympathetic with those who hold simple portfolios.

Recently though I decided to move most of my remaining funds out of the REA and I moved them into the Traditional in my IRA. And as the credit crisis has lessened, I have been constructing a more diversified portfolio at T-C. At the moment though it is 79% Traditional with the rest spread between Index mutual funds, REA, ILB and MM. So my equity portfolio is very small. Thus when I speak of a slice and dice equity portfolio one has to keep this in mind and I never intend to make equity mutual funds more than 20 to 30% of my T-C holdings. But I do intend to stick with the slice and dice portfolio of index funds.

Ray 

Thanks, Ray. And fair enough. As you say: "different strokes..."

Henry

[quote user="raywax"]

My guess is Mike is aware of this and chooses to pay the "price."

[/quote]

Yes, I was paying less for my slice and dice portfolio.  Unfortunately I was also enjoying it less.  The T-C Portfolio (Traditional, REA, and Stock) is our road to Dublin.  My wife also has TC accounts and invests in the same holdings.  I expect to depart the planet ahead of my wife and our simplified T-C will serve her well when I'm gone.  The WMA will give her the guidance she will need.  I do like Ray's idea of an inheritance portfolio, seperate and apart from that needed in retirement.  This I can see doing a little slicing and dicing and even enjoying it.

Mike

Mike,

Financial planners don't see to like it because it seems to violate their mantra that one manage the entire portfolio as one. I know there are some that advocate buckets - and I guess I have two buckets, inheritance and income. But it works for me.

Each has totally difference objectives and each has to be managed differently. Our inheritance bucket is moderately aggressive because it sits in a combination of Traditional and Roth IRAs which will pass to our children upon the passing of the first of myself or my wife and in that sense, the inheritance bucket has a "long life."

My T-C funds are what we will live off - plus SS and a small military pension - so it is managed much more conservatively. Yet it is in it that I feel the need for more "equity" and until the REA is set to rebound, I most likely will continue to increase equity in it.

And yes I do enjoy the process of adding equity as there is not a lot at stake and even if I make a mistake, it will not be serious.

Ray 

It would be interesting and helpful if you gentlmen would note the percentages held in your simple portfolios  mentioned, such as

Traditional, Cref Stock, TIAA Real Estate. (or similar uncomplicated portfolios).

Thanks, Sy

It would be interesting and helpful if you gentlmen would note the percentages held in your simple portfolios  mentioned, such as

Traditional, Cref Stock, TIAA Real Estate. (or similar uncomplicated portfolios).

Thanks, Sy

[/quote]

Sy, for us it is:

50% Traditional (in a GRA) ..... 40% CREF Stock ..... 10% REA

Mike

Hi Sy,

Since i only get one move out this quarter, i went all the way down to 33% TREA / 67% TRAD on May 1 (from 80/20 previously).  That's not as much equity as I'd like at my age, and my new money is still going into the two accounts at 50/50, but as oil is so high and all the inflation-hedges have already had such a good run-up and as there's still lots of international political risks out there (including the risk of the Bush admin's overestimation of international political risks) I'm happy to just protect what I have until TREA recovers . . .

All best,

Pete 

"Sy, for us it is:50% Traditional (in a GRA) 40% CREF Stock 10% REA"

Thanks, Mike. So taking a rough estimate would it have you about break-even during the past 6 months, or a small loss?

Sy

"That's not as much equity as I'd like at my age"

Peter, I'm sure you know the difference, but why do you consider TREA equity? You didn't mention any other form of equity.

Sy

"Another factor to consider is the the "slice and dice" approach is said to produce at least the same performance return a total stock market account (the Stock Account approaches being a total global account) with less volatility (smaller standard deviation); I believe Larry Swedroe has stated this at various times in various sources. "

Ray, I think you're saying that the slice & dice approach has less volatility than the Stock Account?

Second question; when rebalancing a slice & dice portfolio, isn't there more control of the proportions of each benchmark, or is the Stock Account doing the rebalancing for you all along?

Sy

Sy,

A whole lot of the stuff you read involves backtesting, or what one famous poster wrote about in a memorable piece called "Predicting the Past."  His name was Ozark, and he was a retired American Airlines pilot, and he was smart and sassy.

Frankly, I take a whole lot of the financial theory mumbo-jumbo  with a large grain of salt (actualy, a shot of single malt scotch) because the very people who argue that you can't forecast returns seem quite willing to forecast expected future returns, which is kind of like the extended forecast at the weather channel

Take slice and dice as an example.  How deep should an investor drill according to theory?  Should you just have domestic and international equity + nominal bonds + tips? Or should you go after sub-asset classes--small, mid, large (both domestic/international), add a dollop of REIT (domestic and foreign?), throw in more international bonds (sovereign and corporate), how 'bout a bit of junk, or commodities, value tilt etc. etc. etc?  Sheez.  Maybe there's a secret grip that's required.

I think Bogle is definitely right that a sensible investor seeks the market return, and capturing the basic asset classes (without drilling to the middle of the earth) at the lowest possible cost is the way to go.  Rick Ferri started a nice thread a while ago at Bogleheads about the core four, and I know you are familiar with Scott Burns's work.

Interestingly, what gets lost in the conversation is the utility of life-cycle planning--establishing your minimum (if not more) standard of living in the safest investments possible and seeking to establish consumption-smoothing throughout your investment lifetime (both in accumulation and decumulation). 

Bobcat, at Bogleheads, has done a wonderful job of calling attention to the excellent economic work of Zvi Bodie, Larry Kotlikoff, and folks like Poterba, Milevsky, Munnell, and even some of the more recent Ibbotson research that shows how exclusive reliance on safe withdrawal rates can lead to a heckuva bumpy financial existence.

The volatility (or lack thereof) that matters most to me is that I know from month to month and even year to year what my income will be (that much I can forecast), because I do not rely on portfolio income for either fixed or discretionary expenses.  Annuity income, including Social Security, offers a terrific method of consumption-smoothing.  Obviously, devising ways of making such income inflation-adjusted is a significant, but not impossible, challenge.

Like Ray, I too run a legacy portfolio, but it's subject to RMD when the time comes.  So while my intentions are good the taxes won't be terribly pleasant. 

Here endeth Bob's epistle for the day (actually for the week).  Off to Dallas.  Cheerio.  Bob U. 

Well, the two of us have these totals in our TIAA-CREF accounts:

TIAA Traditional: 35%
CREF Stock:     17%
TIAA Real Est:   20%
CREF Inf Lk Bd:  12%
T-C Brokerages:  16%

Total:                 100%

But TIAA-CREF only has about 1/4 of our investments, so this is misleading.  As for Sy's next question, I've run quarterly totals, but I only rebalance annually.  However, I don't do all the moves in the same month right after totalling.

December, 2007, the grand total (not just T-C) was

Fixed Income: 33%
Equity:           55%
Real Estate:     7%
Cash               5%

Referring to another recent post, I think lots of people list TIAA REA as Equity because so few models other than T-C's  allow for direct real estate holdings.  For example, I recently ran a retirement projection with Fidelity's excellent online, almost anonymous Monte Carlo tool, and I had to put my REA as Equity there too.  I don't propose to get into an argument about what REA correlates with-I'm just talking about a practical inaccuracy!  The Fidelity analysis was remarkably similar to our WMA's Ibbotson report.

Tim
 

Sy,

 I was not comparing the volatility of slice & dice explicitly to the Stock Account but to an investment in a total stock market account. However, as I think I indicated in my post the Stock Account is almost a "total account" in itself as it covers domestic, international and emerging markets and to the degree this is true, that was what I was implying. But I do not know exactly how a slice & dice portfolio would camper to the Stock Account. I guess it would depend on the exact composition of the slice & dice portfolio.

Yes, to your second question. As the account owner has control of each account he/she has control of rebalancing.

Ray 

Hi Sy,

I think we've had some previous posts on TREA as equity and i think you could make two different arguments:

1) It's theoretically closer to equity (owning something) than to a bond (giving someone a loan with an agreement for repayment with interest) just like having equity in your house is a form of owning something.

2) Both TREA and its longer-standing historical benchmark have offered "equity-like" returns in practice. 

All best,

Pete 

Interestingly, what gets lost in the conversation is the utility of life-cycle planning--establishing your minimum (if not more) standard of living in the safest investments possible and seeking to establish consumption-smoothing throughout your investment lifetime (both in accumulation and decumulation).... 

The volatility (or lack thereof) that matters most to me is that I know from month to month and even year to year what my income will be (that much I can forecast), because I do not rely on portfolio income for either fixed or discretionary expenses.  Annuity income, including Social Security, offers a terrific method of consumption-smoothing.  Obviously, devising ways of making such income inflation-adjusted is a significant, but not impossible, challenge.

Bob,

There's the rub. When we first consulted with our WMA about 4 years ago, she suggested that the best (or possibly only) way to survive decently was to accept annuitization of our entire portfolio. As we mulled it over and tried to accept it in theory, I discovered what I considered a gross error in their official Retirement Review. When I pointed it out to her, she used a back-of-the-envelope calculation to circumvent it, rather than re-submitting it. At this point, I became wary of TIAA's history of having all annuitants annuitize, come what may.

About 5 or 6 years ago BWMA (Before Wealth Management Advisors), I consulted with an advisor about the benefits of TIAA Real Estate, but he advised me not to invest in it because it was going to return to the mean, (which it didn't do.)

So, I decided to risk a 45/55 Traditional/TIAA Real Estate portfolio after the consultation with my WMA, and as you know it turned out to be a very good decision until recently. Currently, I've reduced our position to 90% Traditional/10% TREA which is producing less income than we need, but at least it's not losing like equities are. I'm building up some miniscule equity positions gradually hoping for a "return to the mean", but to further complicate my thinking; I'm 2/3 through "The Black Swan" by Taleb, in which he demonstrates how analysts are deluding themselves and their clients by relying on the "bell curve" that does not really take into account the unknown and highly improbable which can destroy a portfolio.

Sy 

As you most likely know until a year ago I had two holdings in my T-C investments which at the time were probably about 95% of our investments - the REA and the Traditional. Recently though I decided to move most of my remaining funds out of the REA and I moved them into the Traditional in my IRA. And as the credit crisis has lessened, I have been constructing a more diversified portfolio at T-C. At the moment though it is 79% Traditional with the rest spread between Index mutual funds, REA, ILB and MM. So my equity portfolio is very small. Thus when I speak of a slice and dice equity portfolio one has to keep this in mind and I never intend to make equity mutual funds more than 20 to 30% of my T-C holdings. But I do intend to stick with the slice and dice portfolio of  index funds"

Ray,

Except for your "inheritance fund" that you're providing for your descendents; I feel that we are very closely allied in our outlook of the structure of our portfolios, but you're ahead in the "investment game" because I believe that while you were employed in a solid long-lived profession, I spent the first half of my life with little pay, trying to live the life of a jazz musician. Then later when I got a "steady gig at a community college", I took many risks, some of them foolish, attempting to rapidly build up my financial position.

Anyway, I like your lead, and appreciate when you make your positions known. 

Sy

Sy,

Here are the figures for each of my two "buckets" rounded to the nearest integer value.

T-C = Income bucket

Traditional Account = 79%

Equities = 6%

REA = 6%

MM = 4%

ILB = 4%

Inheritance  Bucket

TIPS  = 34%

US Agency Bonds = 10%

Equitites = 56%

The split between the income bucket and inheritance bucket is just about two thirds in the former and one-third in the latter.

Ray 

"I never had the Ibotson analysis done for me because I have had no interest in it. I do not believe there is one portfolio that fits all."

Ray,

I'd be interested in hearing why you're not interested in the Ibbotson analysis. I doubt it is one portfolio fits all, as then there would be no need for special preparation. My WMA is about to do one for me (if she ever gets around to it). Her assistant spoke about 500 different scenarios. I think he's referring to the Monte Carlo simulations.

I've been influenced recently by Taleb's book "The Black Swan". He denounces the Gaussian bell curve theory which I think Modern Portfolio Theory is based on. He also thinks the Nobel Prize winners like Merton (the son) and William Sharpe are a danger to (investing) society.

Sy

Sy,

Another reason for me to reject the Ibbotson analysis relates to the simple-minded questions that are supposed to give information about your "risk tolerance." It's like asking "I like money." Circle 1 if yes; circle 2 if no. Then it asks: "Enter the age when you'll be dead: ___"

Another reason is that I believe that the Ibbotson review is an indication of the failure of TIAA-CREF to provide simple retirement choices. The lifecycle funds are intended to satisfy that need for simplicity, perhaps, but I am not convinced that all these options do anything better for us than plain ole' Traditional, CREF stock, and RE.

But it is fun to look over the review on occasion. It tells me how to avoid having no money when I'm 86. To avoid that outcome, I avoid the Ibbotson recommendations. Part of me also thinks that my WMA considers the review a PR stunt thrust upon us (and him...). 

Henry

I only know of the Ibotson portfolio analysis by what I have read here, including posts you have made in the past, and the impression I get is that it always comes out with a portfolio that is possibly appropriate for someone early in the accumulation stage but definitely not for anyone in my or your position. I also tend to agree with Henry's WMA, they are more for PR than anything else. And now that I have segregated my inheritance account from my retirement income funds at T-C, I am not interested in a portfolio that is heavy in equity, no matter how broadly diversified it is. Finally, I am well satisfied with the job I have done managing our T-C funds to date and I will continue to do that as long as possible. And after that I have a fee based planner who can advise my wife.

Ray
 

I tried calling my WMAs today and as usual got the message that they are not at their desks, but you could leave a message, or if it's urgent, to  call WMA headquarters.

It wasn't urgent, but I called headquarters anyway, and asked if the Ibbotson review was based on Modern Portfolio Theory. That really stumped him. When I tried to sign off, he insisted I hold on and he would ask someone who knew. He returned and informed me that no one knew, but he could put me in touch with my WMA. When I said "no, thanks," he filibustered for quite awhile. I learned about how sunny Denver is, which is nice.

Sy

I just want to mention that "away from his desk" is a figure of speech.  Each of the four or so times my wife and I have been to see our WMA, we have spent over an hour in his office, discussing our retirement plan and investments.  He has never received, heard or responded to any sort of interruption during any of those meetings.  I find that to be refreshing, courteous, and professional.

Despite his being younger than we are (!), he has never once held up a cell phone and said, "I have to take this call" - which I imagine happens all the time when you meet with a hedge fund superstar who takes 20% of your gains .... but I'm getting off the topic.

So in fact, I sometimes email him, because I prefer not to leave a phone message and get a call back at an unpredictable time. There's nothing wrong with Sy's factual report. And I'm sure each WMA is different. But I did not want a future reader to infer that WMAs are universally unavailable when you want them.

Tim 

My wife and I also find our WMA to be courteous, respectful, and professional. We meet for almost an hour in a conference room -- the three of us. There are no interruptions. He is patient and helpful. I have no complaints with my WMA.

Henry

Am I dreaming or did I just get my knuckles rapped?

OK. Here's a little greater detail. I love my WMA. She's very smart, well-mannered and gives us her complete attention when we visit with her. No, she doesn't take any calls while we're with her. She's good enough that she seems to be in great demand lately. She has assistants who don't follow through, though.

"I'm away from my desk" doesn't need interpretation except for visitors from Mars.

The new WMA headquarters might be renamed hindquarters, though. It's not that they're young. You can be young and brilliant at the same time. But if they're there to advise you and don't even have an idea of what Modern Portfolio Theory is; !!!

Just by chance perhaps, every time I received advice from a counselor or a WMA and didn't follow it, I did better than if I had followed the advice. That could just be accidental. but I tend to believe that a good many of the results of intellectual investing are accidental.

Sy

Sy,

I suspect you are right about WMA advice being an intellectual experience as nearly all (probably all by definition as they are employed) are in the accumulation phase of their investing career where we are not and that of course makes a big difference. Being past the accumulation stage is much like risk, one can think he/she understands it but that is likely to turn out to be untrue when one experiences a major "criss" as we have been (and still are?) experiencing with the credit crisis. 

Ray 

Sy,

I only meant to communicate that my WMA is a really nice person. Who knows if his advice will stand the test of time. Ask me in 30 years...

Henry