Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
I would not be overly worrisome if I did not have immediate access to a 4-year cash reserve. I hope you share that same feeling.
The 4-year near cash criteria was introduced as part of Dex’s specific retirement issues. It is a purely arbitrary number. In fact, many financial advisors typically suggest a more manageable 1 to 2 year protective reserve.
A consecutive 4 year market downturn is highly unlikely. It must be assessed as an outlier combination of events, a real Black Swan series.
As a first-cut analysis, assume that your entire portfolio is invested in only US stocks. For any given year, the likelihood of a positive outcome is about 70%, which means there is a 30% probability of a negative return. The probability of 4 consecutive negative outcomes is 0.30 taken 4 times or 0.0081, less than a 1% likelihood. That’s not too troublesome.
And remember, this is a bounding calculation since it does not include the volatility reduction protection of portfolio diversification which will lower these odds still more.
One shortcoming of my first-cut calculation is that it only accounts for the frequency of the event happening. It does not address the magnitudes. Expected end value is what investors are seeking, and that depends on the product of the odds times the magnitudes.
The need for expected end value makes any analysis more complex. Well, Monte Carlo codes are up to that task with some more realistic scenarios.
As a second cut, I ran a 40/20/40 US stock/Foreign stock/Total bond mix portfolio for a conservative 5 year period using historical market statistics.
The average maximum drawdown for all the losing years was a minus 4.13% and the median drawdown value was a negative 0.94%. These are not catastrophic numbers. A small cash reserve and/or minor temporary lifestyle adjustments could accommodate this unlikely stormy patch.
@MJG Negative market returns are part of the picture. The other piece is the recover time. What I mean here is, "how long will it take for your stocks to recover from periodic negative returns?"
Segregating your portfolio according to MaxDD (risk) is worthwhile. Having enough stable assets (however you define stable) to not only last you through the period of MaxDD, but also through the recovery time from MaxDD. This could very easily be 4 years.
In this example (below) I used VTI as my equity holding and PONDX as my (near cash):
You are perfectly right that starting in the timeframe that you specified would have caused high anxiety for a newbie investor. The numbers I reported were averages from thousands of random Monte Carlo simulations.
I'm sure you were being fair by not citing the 1931 debacle when stocks lost 52.7 % of their price.
But for experienced investors, such as you and me, we just might have interpreted it as a buying opportunity.
In most instances the long-term view must take primacy over the shorter-term view that you highlighted. I’m sure you recognize your mistake in over-emphasizing that disappointing period.
There is a patience payoff. The markets quickly recovered. It’s easy to verify my statement. I used the historical records in the Portfolio Visualizer website. Check it out. You can input your own portfolio asset allocation.
From 2007 to 2010, a generic portfolio of a 40/20/40 US equity/ International equity/Bond asset allocation mix yielded positive average annual returns. My own more widely diversified portfolio generated a 3.5% annual return for that period. Those rewards grew in succeeding years.
MFOer Bee has nicely grasped the essential element of risk
Thank you for your continuing interest in Monte Carlo.
@MJG: Your attempt to graft the reactions of "experienced investors, such as you and me" onto the more predictable reactions of the "average" investor are an interesting exercise in obscuring reality. The reality is that huge numbers of investors left the market during that timeframe, and will never recover. I base that statement on the fact that it has frequently been cited here on MFO by a wide variety of knowledgeable contributors.
OJ, it is absolutely true that if you quail at a major drop, you will suffer, and ought not to have been in market in the first place. Let us assume that does not apply to sophisticated types like us .
Looking at the bee VTI graph I appreciate more why I stick with active management in retirement (also more US-oriented funds, more large-cap, meaning less diversified, than before retirement). But bee's point about parsing by maxDD is spot on regardless.
I have found PONDX rocky enough recently not to use it anymore.
But this is all helpful to see how others conceive of things.
Neophyte investors have notoriously misbehaved in markets forever. Remember the Tulip Bubble and the South Sea disasters of yesteryear. I agree, this is definitely not new stuff.
DALBAR had been dutifully documenting investor's unfortunate mistiming actions with annual reports for decades. Not much has changed over these decades. The specific numbers in the reports change, but the conclusions do not.
In the old days, individual investors mostly traded against each other. Today, they mostly trade against professional organizations. Even these professional agencies find it a more challenging slog as they now battle each other. Alpha is a disappearing quantity.
So the rookie investors have more formidable hurdles to jump. DALBAR consistently finds that private investors fail in this task. The historical record is that, as a cohort, individual investors only get about one-third of annual market returns. I would guesstimate that newbie investors fill the lower ranks of that low average.
I assume that you have accessed DALBAR reports previously, so here is a Link to a Forbes analysis of a recent DALBAR release:
Fair question: I guess in hindsight the answer is stupidity / impatience on my part. I got very spoiled by the growth of the summer 2012 chunk put in, and then ditto summer 2013 put in; sold out;
then put in new bigger chunk last Xgiving or so, and by the end of February (cabin fever from bad winter must've played a part) I felt ugh, wtf is going on, things have changed at Pimco and in the bond world and yada yada. So I bailed.
Rocky not a fair characterization. Just shortsighted and used to something other than plateaus and the rare dip.
Your example using VTI and PONDX is similar to a typical 60/40 (equity/bond) model, and that illustrates the benefit of a balanced allocation throughout the MaxDD period. One can slice and dice the equity or bond portions further, but it is equally as important to pay attention to the asset correlation between them. For example, diversifying the equity globally did not lessen the draw down in 2008. Even among the bond sector, emerging market debts and junk bonds went down in double digits while government and investment grade bonds fared much better.
Thank you so very much for your astute correlation dynamics observation. Correlation is a significant consideration when constructing a portfolio.
Much correlation coefficient confusion exists. One reason for the confusion is its underappreciated dynamic nature. Its unpredictable changing interrelationships creates decision uncertainty which multiplies investor stress levels.
Diversification is often said to be the only free lunch available to individual investors. That’s true most of the time, but it is not a constant.
A terrific example of its positive portfolio benefits to reduce loses is the 2000-2003 market meltdown. An equally terrific example of its disappearing benefits when it mostly failed to protect a diversified portfolio is the 2007-2008 market meltdown. During this latter event, the correlation coefficients merged towards the useless One value. From a diversification perspective, there is no perfectly safe harbor.
Since correlations are an important factor when assembling a diversified portfolio, MFOers might be interested in an accessible tool that does the correlation calculation for specific mutual fund inputs. The Portfolio Visualizer website offers such a tool. Here is the Link to its Correlation calculator directly:
Users get to choose their own comparative mutual fund matrix, and both starting and end dates for the correlation comparison. The correlations are dependent on timeframe, thus demonstrating their dynamic nature. I encourage MFOers to take advantage of this tool when considering portfolio changes.
I have been doing retirement planning for clients for almost 30 years, and key to ANY successful retirement is the level of debt carried into retirement. No mortgage makes an enormous difference, perhaps the single biggest identifier of successful cash flow for many retirees. Our lifetime income projections have used 5% as a standard withdrawal rate for at least 20 years, based on the actual history of a conservative asset allocation and factoring in a 3% inflation rate. 4% is even better. Clients who must withdraw 6, 7, or 8% at the beginning are in trouble from the start, unless they plan on only living a short time. The other factor is being able to wait until age 70, which can provide SS recipients with a significant cash flow bump. Our experience has also been that clients will actually call us to ask permission to spend their money, when in reality these clients are the ones who will never, ever run out of money.
@BobC - you make a very important point about stable cash flows, in (SS, other annuities) and out (mortgage). They have a disproportionate impact on planning.
Compare a person with no mortgage and enough assets for a 4% withdrawal rate with another having twice the assets but having a mortgage that consumes 1/2 of the budget. (So the extra assets just service the mortgage.)
Suppose the portfolio drops 10%. The first person might decrease discretionary spending 10% and maintain that 4% withdrawal rate. The second person doesn't have the flexibility to reduce the mortgage payments. So that person would have to reduce the other spending by 20% to maintain the same 4% withdrawal rate. Much harder.
Conversely, someone with a steady income stream (SS, annuity) can weather volatility in the rest of the portfolio more easily. If that income stream constituted 1/2 of the cash flow, then a 10% drop in the portfolio would require only a 5% adjustment in expenditures to compensate. Someone who was relying entirely on portfolio income might have to make a 10% reduction in expenditures.
(Of course the idea of a 4% withdrawal rate is that one doesn't have to adapt fully for volatility in one's portfolio, but adjustments are still advisable. They are easier with a steady income stream and harder with a steady drain such as a mortgage.)
BobC, Obviously I agree with you about being debt free and its impact on retirement. That should be Rule #1 with frugality Rule#2. But I still believe there is no right or wrong answer on when to take retirement. I know more than a few that never made it to 70 and/or had serious health issues when they did. Better to take the money and run in able to order to pursue one retirement's passions while you are still able and in good health.
Edit: Then again, I guess some people's passion is their work. Like i said, there is no right or wrong answer on when to take SS. It's all an individual decision based on many variables.
The mortgage thing all depends on absolute and relative cost of debt service vs investment returns. It seems wiser to me to keep on with my 120k mortgage at 3.5% than to pay it off, and thus far so it has proved. Ric Edelman and many others share that take in general. Still more feel the opposite, it appears. It all depends, and your mileage may vary. Peace of mind is important, of course, however, and you do not want to prevent having that.
This is a good summary although it does not speak specifically to retirement: link This does: link
can't post links...
There was an error performing your request. Please try again.
I am 66 and will defer SS as long as possible (to age 70), but in the event of another big market meltdown, I can always take it sooner. My wife and I can probably live comfortably off our portfolio alone until 95, but we also want to leave something to the kids. A three leg stool is the ideal situation, so for us, we have a decent nest egg, SS that will provide $45-48K, and a small pension. I retired at 54, 57 and 63 for good. Got a bit bored in the early retired years and returned to work for the stimulation. I'm also very conservative portfolio wise, so like Ted, if you've already won the game, no need for a high risk port.
I am 66 and will defer SS as long as possible (to age 70), but in the event of another big market meltdown, I can always take it sooner. My wife and I can probably live comfortably off our portfolio alone until 95, but we also want to leave something to the kids. A three leg stool is the ideal situation, so for us, we have a decent nest egg, SS that will provide $45-48K, and a small pension.
SS is an income that doesn't have a death value where as your portfolio always will. If leaving something for your kids is important wouldn't taking SS early help "grow" and preserve your portfolio?
Great discussion, which prompted two questions from my side.
1. Is there an SS calculator (preferably on the SS site) which tells me how much social security income I can expect at age 66 or 70, etc., if I stop working today? The default calculator assumes I will continue to earn a certain income till a certain age (believe 62).
2. Regarding getting free of mortgage, do any of you have any experience/pointers regarding downsizing or relocation to achieve this? Noticed that some of you have even relocated to foreign lands.
Not that I know of or was able to find. Until I finally had a year of zero earnings, my statement explicitly said 'assumes future earning at same rate' or some such wording. So I extrapolated from the figures they give at upper right (past, present, not future) and then added some CoLA to it. It is fairly linear, meaning you can extrapolate for in-between years. So get your latest statement from them and check it out. Through 2014 is now posted, dated 1/15, meaning earnings through 2013.
"So I extrapolated from the figures they give at upper right (past, present, not future) and then added some CoLA to it. It is fairly linear, meaning you can extrapolate for in-between years"
@Kaspa- Yep, David's suggestion should work out to be fairly close- that's pretty much what I did also.
Great discussion, which prompted two questions from my side.
1. Is there an SS calculator (preferably on the SS site) which tells me how much social security income I can expect at age 66 or 70, etc., if I stop working today? The default calculator assumes I will continue to earn a certain income till a certain age (believe 62).
You enter your annual earnings through 2014, your estimated earnings in 2015, and your annual earnings from 2016 until your retirement date.
So if you stop working today, you enter your YTD earnings for 2015, 0 for 2016 on, and pick your retirement age (66 and 0 months, 70 and 0 months, etc.)
This calculator won't work if you're planning to work into 2016, but not draw SS until, say, 2018. Because if you give any earnings for 2016, it will use those earnings for 2017, etc. until you retire. But the calculator does seem flexible enough to handle your question - retire this year, and start drawing SS in some later year.
Thanks msf. This is exactly what I needed. It gives an estimate at age 62. Assume I can approximately calculate estimates for age 67 and 70, using the same ratio of numbers using the other calculator (which gives the value for the other scenario, working till retgirement).
The two highest priorities on your happiness ladder are health and wealth. I suspect these are the same highest rungs on most MFOer’s ladders. I agree.
But these goals are definitely not independent of each other. They are opposite sides of the same coin. They are horses of the same color. From a statistical perspective, they are highly correlated.
And this is not me making an uninformed assertion. Many formal studies document the highly correlated nature of wealth and health. One study that I will reference is titled “Wealth Secures Health”.
Here is the Link to this American Psychological Association article:
From this article, Gandhi is quoted as saying: “It is health that is real wealth, and not pieces of gold and silver.”
Just a little further down, the article cautions that “Counseled by such wise words distinguishing health from wealth, one might begin to believe the two have little to do with each another. One would be tragically misinformed.”
Sure health is important, but these references, and a host of others, emphasize that wealth makes securing health a much easier task. As always, just like in investing, a balanced approach likely produces the best outcome.
Near the end of the Tennessean article, the author advises that: “While money can certainly help you improve and maintain your health, too much focus on earning it can be unhealthy, too.”
I am 66 and will defer SS as long as possible (to age 70), but in the event of another big market meltdown, I can always take it sooner. My wife and I can probably live comfortably off our portfolio alone until 95, but we also want to leave something to the kids. A three leg stool is the ideal situation, so for us, we have a decent nest egg, SS that will provide $45-48K, and a small pension.
SS is an income that doesn't have a death value where as your portfolio always will. If leaving something for your kids is important wouldn't taking SS early help "grow" and preserve your portfolio?
Possibly, but it also provides some longevity protection. My wife is 5 years younger than me, and her earnings when she worked were much lower than mine. Our thought is for me to defer taking my SS to 70, she claims half of mine at her FRA when she turns 66, and then she can move to her own at 70 if greater than her spousal. Meanwhile, if I pass, she will benefit from my higher SS amount.
Comments
I would not be overly worrisome if I did not have immediate access to a 4-year cash reserve. I hope you share that same feeling.
The 4-year near cash criteria was introduced as part of Dex’s specific retirement issues. It is a purely arbitrary number. In fact, many financial advisors typically suggest a more manageable 1 to 2 year protective reserve.
A consecutive 4 year market downturn is highly unlikely. It must be assessed as an outlier combination of events, a real Black Swan series.
As a first-cut analysis, assume that your entire portfolio is invested in only US stocks. For any given year, the likelihood of a positive outcome is about 70%, which means there is a 30% probability of a negative return. The probability of 4 consecutive negative outcomes is 0.30 taken 4 times or 0.0081, less than a 1% likelihood. That’s not too troublesome.
And remember, this is a bounding calculation since it does not include the volatility reduction protection of portfolio diversification which will lower these odds still more.
One shortcoming of my first-cut calculation is that it only accounts for the frequency of the event happening. It does not address the magnitudes. Expected end value is what investors are seeking, and that depends on the product of the odds times the magnitudes.
The need for expected end value makes any analysis more complex. Well, Monte Carlo codes are up to that task with some more realistic scenarios.
As a second cut, I ran a 40/20/40 US stock/Foreign stock/Total bond mix portfolio for a conservative 5 year period using historical market statistics.
The average maximum drawdown for all the losing years was a minus 4.13% and the median drawdown value was a negative 0.94%. These are not catastrophic numbers. A small cash reserve and/or minor temporary lifestyle adjustments could accommodate this unlikely stormy patch.
I hope this provides you some comfort.
Best Wishes.
Ummm- 2007/2008?
Segregating your portfolio according to MaxDD (risk) is worthwhile. Having enough stable assets (however you define stable) to not only last you through the period of MaxDD, but also through the recovery time from MaxDD. This could very easily be 4 years.
In this example (below) I used VTI as my equity holding and PONDX as my (near cash):
You are perfectly right that starting in the timeframe that you specified would have caused high anxiety for a newbie investor. The numbers I reported were averages from thousands of random Monte Carlo simulations.
I'm sure you were being fair by not citing the 1931 debacle when stocks lost 52.7 % of their price.
But for experienced investors, such as you and me, we just might have interpreted it as a buying opportunity.
In most instances the long-term view must take primacy over the shorter-term view that you highlighted. I’m sure you recognize your mistake in over-emphasizing that disappointing period.
There is a patience payoff. The markets quickly recovered. It’s easy to verify my statement. I used the historical records in the Portfolio Visualizer website. Check it out. You can input your own portfolio asset allocation.
From 2007 to 2010, a generic portfolio of a 40/20/40 US equity/ International equity/Bond asset allocation mix yielded positive average annual returns. My own more widely diversified portfolio generated a 3.5% annual return for that period. Those rewards grew in succeeding years.
MFOer Bee has nicely grasped the essential element of risk
Thank you for your continuing interest in Monte Carlo.
Best Wishes.
So noted in revision. Thanks.
Looking at the bee VTI graph I appreciate more why I stick with active management in retirement (also more US-oriented funds, more large-cap, meaning less diversified, than before retirement). But bee's point about parsing by maxDD is spot on regardless.
I have found PONDX rocky enough recently not to use it anymore.
But this is all helpful to see how others conceive of things.
Neophyte investors have notoriously misbehaved in markets forever. Remember the Tulip Bubble and the South Sea disasters of yesteryear. I agree, this is definitely not new stuff.
DALBAR had been dutifully documenting investor's unfortunate mistiming actions with annual reports for decades. Not much has changed over these decades. The specific numbers in the reports change, but the conclusions do not.
In the old days, individual investors mostly traded against each other. Today, they mostly trade against professional organizations. Even these professional agencies find it a more challenging slog as they now battle each other. Alpha is a disappearing quantity.
So the rookie investors have more formidable hurdles to jump. DALBAR consistently finds that private investors fail in this task. The historical record is that, as a cohort, individual investors only get about one-third of annual market returns. I would guesstimate that newbie investors fill the lower ranks of that low average.
I assume that you have accessed DALBAR reports previously, so here is a Link to a Forbes analysis of a recent DALBAR release:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/04/24/why-the-average-investors-investment-return-is-so-low/
The bar chart is especially illuminating.
John Bogle is on target when he preaches the persistence gospel.
Best Wishes.
http://tinyurl.com/m37qtl2
Specifically, what makes PIMCO Income so rocky for you that you no longer use it?
Mona
then put in new bigger chunk last Xgiving or so, and by the end of February (cabin fever from bad winter must've played a part) I felt ugh, wtf is going on, things have changed at Pimco and in the bond world and yada yada. So I bailed.
Rocky not a fair characterization. Just shortsighted and used to something other than plateaus and the rare dip.
Your example using VTI and PONDX is similar to a typical 60/40 (equity/bond) model, and that illustrates the benefit of a balanced allocation throughout the MaxDD period. One can slice and dice the equity or bond portions further, but it is equally as important to pay attention to the asset correlation between them. For example, diversifying the equity globally did not lessen the draw down in 2008. Even among the bond sector, emerging market debts and junk bonds went down in double digits while government and investment grade bonds fared much better.
Thank you so very much for your astute correlation dynamics observation. Correlation is a significant consideration when constructing a portfolio.
Much correlation coefficient confusion exists. One reason for the confusion is its underappreciated dynamic nature. Its unpredictable changing interrelationships creates decision uncertainty which multiplies investor stress levels.
Diversification is often said to be the only free lunch available to individual investors. That’s true most of the time, but it is not a constant.
A terrific example of its positive portfolio benefits to reduce loses is the 2000-2003 market meltdown. An equally terrific example of its disappearing benefits when it mostly failed to protect a diversified portfolio is the 2007-2008 market meltdown. During this latter event, the correlation coefficients merged towards the useless One value. From a diversification perspective, there is no perfectly safe harbor.
Since correlations are an important factor when assembling a diversified portfolio, MFOers might be interested in an accessible tool that does the correlation calculation for specific mutual fund inputs. The Portfolio Visualizer website offers such a tool. Here is the Link to its Correlation calculator directly:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/asset-correlations
Users get to choose their own comparative mutual fund matrix, and both starting and end dates for the correlation comparison. The correlations are dependent on timeframe, thus demonstrating their dynamic nature. I encourage MFOers to take advantage of this tool when considering portfolio changes.
Thanks again for your insightful contribution.
Best Wishes.
Compare a person with no mortgage and enough assets for a 4% withdrawal rate with another having twice the assets but having a mortgage that consumes 1/2 of the budget. (So the extra assets just service the mortgage.)
Suppose the portfolio drops 10%. The first person might decrease discretionary spending 10% and maintain that 4% withdrawal rate. The second person doesn't have the flexibility to reduce the mortgage payments. So that person would have to reduce the other spending by 20% to maintain the same 4% withdrawal rate. Much harder.
Conversely, someone with a steady income stream (SS, annuity) can weather volatility in the rest of the portfolio more easily. If that income stream constituted 1/2 of the cash flow, then a 10% drop in the portfolio would require only a 5% adjustment in expenditures to compensate. Someone who was relying entirely on portfolio income might have to make a 10% reduction in expenditures.
(Of course the idea of a 4% withdrawal rate is that one doesn't have to adapt fully for volatility in one's portfolio, but adjustments are still advisable. They are easier with a steady income stream and harder with a steady drain such as a mortgage.)
That works. Period.
Edit: Then again, I guess some people's passion is their work. Like i said, there is no right or wrong answer on when to take SS. It's all an individual decision based on many variables.
The mortgage thing all depends on absolute and relative cost of debt service vs investment returns. It seems wiser to me to keep on with my 120k mortgage at 3.5% than to pay it off, and thus far so it has proved. Ric Edelman and many others share that take in general. Still more feel the opposite, it appears. It all depends, and your mileage may vary. Peace of mind is important, of course, however, and you do not want to prevent having that.
This is a good summary although it does not speak specifically to retirement:
link
This does:
link
can't post links...
There was an error performing your request. Please try again.
trying piecemail:
http://www.edelmanfinancial.com/education-center/articles
append this:
/1/11-great-reasons-to-carry-a-big-long-mortgage
and now this:
http://www.edelmanfinancial.com/radio
append this
/september-27-2014/
and finally append this:
should-you-get
and:
- a - mortgage - when - youre - retired
closing up the spaces
Wow, something very funky going on today wrt urls in comments!
Sorry for laborious effort above, shoulda used tiny url or something!
1. Is there an SS calculator (preferably on the SS site) which tells me how much social security income I can expect at age 66 or 70, etc., if I stop working today? The default calculator assumes I will continue to earn a certain income till a certain age (believe 62).
2. Regarding getting free of mortgage, do any of you have any experience/pointers regarding downsizing or relocation to achieve this? Noticed that some of you have even relocated to foreign lands.
@Kaspa- Yep, David's suggestion should work out to be fairly close- that's pretty much what I did also.
You enter your annual earnings through 2014, your estimated earnings in 2015, and your annual earnings from 2016 until your retirement date.
So if you stop working today, you enter your YTD earnings for 2015, 0 for 2016 on, and pick your retirement age (66 and 0 months, 70 and 0 months, etc.)
This calculator won't work if you're planning to work into 2016, but not draw SS until, say, 2018. Because if you give any earnings for 2016, it will use those earnings for 2017, etc. until you retire. But the calculator does seem flexible enough to handle your question - retire this year, and start drawing SS in some later year.
The two highest priorities on your happiness ladder are health and wealth. I suspect these are the same highest rungs on most MFOer’s ladders. I agree.
But these goals are definitely not independent of each other. They are opposite sides of the same coin. They are horses of the same color. From a statistical perspective, they are highly correlated.
And this is not me making an uninformed assertion. Many formal studies document the highly correlated nature of wealth and health. One study that I will reference is titled “Wealth Secures Health”.
Here is the Link to this American Psychological Association article:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct01/wealthhealth.aspx
Here’s another Link to a more recent article from a popular resource, The Tennessean:
http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2014/08/23/health-financial-wealth-closely-linked/14462223/
From this article, Gandhi is quoted as saying: “It is health that is real wealth, and not pieces of gold and silver.”
Just a little further down, the article cautions that “Counseled by such wise words distinguishing health from wealth, one might begin to believe the two have little to do with each another. One would be tragically misinformed.”
Sure health is important, but these references, and a host of others, emphasize that wealth makes securing health a much easier task. As always, just like in investing, a balanced approach likely produces the best outcome.
Near the end of the Tennessean article, the author advises that: “While money can certainly help you improve and maintain your health, too much focus on earning it can be unhealthy, too.”
Amen to that.
Thank you for your posting.
Best Wishes.