I’ve posted Entry #373 to my weekly Valuation-Informed Indexing column at the Value Walk site. It’s called It’s Logically Inconsistent to Buy Stocks in Response to Valuation Shifts But to Rule Out Selling Them for That Reason.
Juicy Excerpt: I think that the biggest cause of the problem is an unfortunate marketing reality: there’s generally more money to be made selling stocks than there is to be made selling the safe asset classes that investors should be buying into when stock prices rise to dangerous levels. Most of the people who are promoted as “experts” in this field are compromised by their need to push stocks for a living. In some cases, they appreciate the benefits that investors could reap by lowering their stock allocations but hesitate to give voice to them. In other cases, they themselves are taken in by the pro-stock commentary that becomes ubiquitous at times of high stock prices (it is an excess of pro-stock commentary that causes the high stock prices!) and cannot even appreciate the case for a lowering of stock allocations at such times.
Buy and holders don’t need to look at valuations when we sell stocks – when prices go up, we rebalance into bonds. In fact, we over-rebalance, since we have more wealth, and our need to take risk has declined, and also because we’re getting older. I sold stocks, and bought bonds again today.
You are leaving two things out of your statement.
One, you don’t mention that the risk associated with owning stocks increases when valuations increase. You say that you take into consideration the fact that your need to take risk has diminished. Why not also take into consideration the fact that the risk associated with stocks increases as valuations increase? It is logically inconsistent to take risk into consideration in the one context and not in the other.
Two, you are failing to QUANTIFY the factors you describe. You say that you sold stocks and bought bonds today. Good for you. But are you now at the right stock allocation? You have no way of knowing until you QUANTIFY the various factors. The most likely annualized 10-year return for someone buying stocks in 1981 was 15 percent real. The most likely annualized 10-year return for someone buying stocks in 2000 was a negative 1 percent real. The risk associated with owning stocks was obviously a LOT greater in 2000 than it was in 1982. The Buy-and-Holder of 2000 might have lowered his stock allocation a tiny bit because he believed in rebalancing but, unless he went to the trouble of quantifying the effect of the insanely dangerous stock prices of 2000, he had no idea how much he needed to lower his stock allocation to get his risk profile back to where he had once decided it should be.
Buy-and-Hold is anti-reason. To reason effectively, we need information. On the surface, the Buy-and-Holders are all about gathering information. They present studies with charts and tables and all these sorts of things. It was that sort of thing that impressed me about Buy-and-Hold many years ago and that convinced me to become a Buy-and-Holder myself for a time. But there is now 36 years of peer-reviewed research showing that the single most important factor determining long-term investing success is the extent to which the investor takes valuations into account when making strategic decisions. And the Buy-and-Holders don’t take valuations into account AT ALL. And they don’t gather information relating to valuations. They ban discussions of such information! They put their fingers in their ears and scream “I can’t hear you!”” when people talk about the 36 years of peer-reviewed research showing that valuations matter. Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming “I can’t hear you!” doesn’t make the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research go away. It is still out there, threatening to destroy your hopes of retirement when the next price crash closes in on us all.
I am saying that we should discuss ALL the information that helps us become better investors. We should discuss all the stuff that the Buy-and-Holders look at, all the stuff that we knew mattered prior to 1981. And we should also discuss all the valuations-related stuff that we only learned mattered in the past 36 years. When you combine the pre-1981 research with the post-1081 research, you’ve really got something. The amazing thing that you’ve got when you do that is the thing we call “Valuation-Informed Indecxing.” It’s the future of investing analysis.
Buy-and-Holders need to look at valuations when they buy stocks and when they sell stocks and at all other times. There is simply no reason not to look at valuations when making any decision relating to stock investing — valuations is the most important factor bearing on any strategic question. Saying that an investor doesn’t need to consider valuations in some circumstances is like saying that a doctor doesn’t need to consider a patient’s blood pressure in some circumstances. A patient’s blood pressure numbers provide the doctor with important information bits. He should always take those numbers into consideration. If the numbers are normal, he can of course go on to other things just as an investor can go on to consider other factors if he takes a look at valuations and sees that they are at fair-value levels. But it is simply not possible for a doctor to do his job without at least stopping for a minute to check blood pressure and it is not possible for an investor to do his job without stopping for a minute to check valuations.
The question is — Why do Buy-and-Holder put so much desperate effort into NOT considering valuations when it is logically so critical that they do so? The reason is that valuations are providing them information that they do not want to know about. Buy-and-Holders live in a fantasy world where stocks are always worth buying, regardless of price. The P/E10 number provides them information that they very much want to ignore. This is what Buy-and-Holders go nutso when people like me present the numbers that need to be taken into consideration when making investing decisions. A part of the Buy-and-Hold mind sees that the numbers are important and is drawn to consider them. Buy-and-Holders generally respect the power of peer-reviewed research. But the Get Rich Quick urge of the Buy-and-Hold mind is threatened by this powerful information and demands that the person providing the information be silenced.
I don’t want to be silenced. I don’t want anyone to be silenced. I want to hear what Jack Bogle thinks of the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research. I want to hear what Robert Shiller thinks of the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research. I want to hear what Wade Pfau thinks of the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research. I want to drink it all in and make my own decisions. And I want every last one of my fellow community members to at least have the opportunity to do the same. That’s how out system works when it comes to every question other than the question of what the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research teaches us about how stock investing works in the real world. I intend to open every investing discussion board and blog on the internet to honest posting so that our system can start working its magic in the investing advice field as well.
Does all of that not make perfectly good sense, my old friend?
Rob
“I intend to open every investing discussion board and blog on the internet to honest posting”
What are you doing today to make that happen?
I’m responding to your comments.
The Shiller Revolution is about investors becoming aware of their own self-destructive Get Rich Quick urge. Shiller’s research tells us what we need to know to become far more effective investors than we ever dreamed we could become in earlier days. We are in the process of as a society giving ourselves permission to talk over and explore the most exciting 36 years of peer-reviewed research in history.
The hateful spirit of you Goons is what holds us back. But it is not accurate to place all of the blame on you Goons. We Normals tolerate your criminal abusiveness, do we not? Why do we do that? Because, while we cannot bear to engage in the abusiveness that you Goons engage in, there is a part of us that wants to see you prevail in your efforts to silence honest discussion of the research. We like giving in to our Get Rich Quick fantasies too. You Goons do the dirty work that we do not feel comfortable doing ourselves. And we keep all the nastiness going by tolerating for 15 years behavior that in other circumstances we would not tolerate for 15 minutes.
Our story is a story of Reason vs. Emotion. That’s the story that has been playing out for every day of the past 15 years. The Goon Conversations documented at this site tell that story in great depth and from every possible angle. In the days following the crash, we will send you Goons to prison and open honest discussions at every site on the internet. The point of those discussions will be to determine how we can all overcome our Get Rich Quick urge and take the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research into consideration when making investing decisions. This site documents the Goon Conversations, Anonymous. This site tells the story that needs to be told and that has not yet been widely told.
All that we say here today will still be here when we all get to the other side of The Big Black Mountain. We will all feel free to talk it over in civil and reasoned ways then. That will be the only difference. But that’s a very big deal indeed.
You Goons think that you are hurting me. But you are really hurting yourselves as much as you are hurting me. The Get Rich Quick urge is a self-destructive urge. Denying yourself access to discussions of 36 years of peer-reviewed research hurts you in a very serious way. And of course all the rest of us have hurt ourselves in very serious way by tolerating your criminally abusive behavior.
The New York Times should be writing about your criminally abusive behavior on the front page every day. It is the most important public policy matter of our time. Millions of us have our retirement money invested in stocks. We need to gain access to honest and accurate reports of what the research teaches us about how stock investing works in the real world. This web site provides the information that we all need to move forward. I add to the web site every time I engage in conversation with one of you Goons.
Does that help?
Rob
So your entire plan is that people will stumble upon this site, see what big meanies we are, and make it all better for you.
Good plan Rob. I guess the old plan (joining political sites, writing more books, etc) is no longer needed. People will just come, like in Field of Dreams.
No one is going to stumble on any sites. That’s silly.
Things will change when prices drop by 50 percent or more. People love Get Rich Quick strategies for so long as they appear to be delivering something to them. When people see how Get Rich Quick strategies destroy their lives, they flip. After the crash, we will be having all of the discussions that we should have been having for the past 15 years. Emotion-based strategies are marketing gold in the short-term but only in the short-term. It is research-based strategies that stand the test of time.
The difference with this bull/bear cycle is that it is the last one we will see. At the end of the earlier three cycles, we went back to our irrational behavior because we did not have 36 years of peer-reviewed research telling us what works. This time we do. That changes everything. That’s the Shiller Revolution.
My aim is to help people invest effectively for the long term. There’s huge value in that. The only thing holding us back is that it makes the Buy-and-Holders feel bad for people to learn what works because they made a mistake when they were developing Buy-and-Hold and it has hurt lots of people and so they want to keep it covered up. I do not want to see the mistake covered up. I want everyone to know about it so that we can move past it. I love the Buy-and-Holders for all the amazing contributions they have made. But I think the cover-up hurts them as much as it hurts everyone else. So I oppose the cover-up.
You Goons would benefit personally from permitting honest posting. Why don’t you do it? That’s the story of stock investing risk. Stocks are not naturally risky. They are risky because investing is done by humans and humans carry a Get Rich Quick urge within them that makes them invest in self-destructive, short-term ways. We all need to learn as much about that phenomenon as possible. I would like to be talking about it on every site in the internet. But I don’t have that option available to me, you know? So I do the next best thing — I develop the ideas here in daily conversations with you Goons so that we will have a mountain of helpful material to provide to millions of middle-class investors in the days following the next price crash, when we will as a society develop the courage to stand up to you and to have you placed in prison cells, where you belong.
Does all of that not sound at least roughly right?
Rob the Patient
“Things will change when prices drop by 50 percent or more.”
Yes, you keep saying that. You just don’t say how. Only that your plan is to sit and wait for the crash, and see what happens. No other effort required on your part.
(whisper) “If you type it, they will come…”
When the price changes, the emotion changes.
The appeal of Buy-and-Hold is 100 percent emotional. There is no intellectual content to it. Not since 1981. But there is HUGE emotional appeal. The emotional appeal is that Buy-and-Holders tell people that their retirement accounts are worth two times what the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research says they are worth. It’s like when Taylor Larimore would talk about a house that he owned as “The House That Jack Built.” There are millions of people today who look at their retirement portfolios and are grateful for the gains that came from following Buy-and-Hold strategies.
That all goes away when prices fall by 50 percent or more. When the only appeal a strategy possesses is emotional, the strategy is in trouble when the emotional appeal goes away. People don’t like Get Rich Quick strategies when they fail. They just don’t.
I don’t want to wait. I want to teach millions of people about what the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research teaches us starting today. But I cannot overcome death threats and demands for unjustified board bannings and thousands of acts of defamation and threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs. No one in any field could overcome the stuff that you Goons put out. But how much longer do you think your criminally abusive garbage is going to be tolerated once prices have fallen by 50 percent. I would bet that it will not be too long, you know.
Live by emotion, die by emotion. The way it is. The benefit of going with a research-based strategy is that it works for the long term. I like being associated with something that is real, something that will stand the test of time.
Does all of that not sound at least roughly right?
Rob
” The most likely annualized 10-year return for someone buying stocks in 2000 was a negative 1 percent real. ”
Anyone can find patterns by combing through past data. It’s only if things continue to work ex-post that matters.
In your case, the ex-post test is how accurate your prediction 4 years ago was that the stock market would drop 60%. That wasn’t looking backwards, but actually making a prediction.
And now we have the result.
Yet, if no one comes to your site now, what is even pulling them here if your stock crash predictions come true?
Yet, if no one comes to your site now, what is even pulling them here if your stock crash predictions come true?
I’ll be able to post at any site on the internet in the days following the next price crash, Anonymous. People will be looking for explanations of what happened to them. People who are looking for more in-depth treatments of the various issues will then some here to gain access to them.
I can’t say that this aspect of things is something that I worry about too much. I worry about the political frictions that we will see after millions of people see more than half of their life savings disappear and then learn that it happened because a group of Wall Street Con Men tolerated the most abusive posting practices even seen on the internet. Getting the word out will be the easy one in the days following the next price crash. That’s the hard one. Keeping the country from being torn into pieces when this all gets written up on the front page of the New York Times will be the hard one.
Rob
Anyone can find patterns by combing through past data. It’s only if things continue to work ex-post that matters.
In your case, the ex-post test is how accurate your prediction 4 years ago was that the stock market would drop 60%. That wasn’t looking backwards, but actually making a prediction.
And now we have the result.
No. I said at the time that I made the prediction that I was only expressing my personal view and that the peer-reviewed research shows that short-term personal predictions rarely work. The fact that my personal short-term predictions did not work out shows nothing more than that my personal short-term predictions are no better than anyone else’s, which should hardly come as a surprise.
What matters is whether stocks continue to perform in the future anything at all as they always have in the past. Valuations have been affecting long-term returns for 148 years now. There have so far been zero years in which long-term returns have played out in the form of random walk. Could it be that we are today entering a time-period in which everything will be turned on its head and we will see things that have never happened before? Anything is theoretically possible. But I think it would be fair to say that that is the longest of all possible long shots. It certainly is not an “idea” that I would want to bet my retirement money on.
I believe that you have bet your retirement money on this “idea” (I use quote marks because a belief that a pure Get Rich Quick strategy will pay off for the first time in the history of the market is rooted in an emotion and is not the product of intellectual analysis). But your behavior shows that you lack confidence in the ability of the idea to prevail in civil and reasoned discussion. That’s not a good sign. If people who have their retirements riding on the concept possess such little confidence in it, why should those of us who are familiar with what the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research says be any more convinced?
I have a funny feeling that the market may continue to perform at least somewhat as it has been for 150 years running now. But we’ll see, you know? I could be wrong. Time will certainly tell the tale.
Rob
“I’ll be able to post at any site on the internet in the days following the next price crash, Anonymous. ”
Oh wait, that’s right. You will be the new owner of the Bogleheads forum and you will have it as as a sub forum to this website as part of that big settlement you are getting.
Will you be renaming to the “Bennettheads” forum?
We would be happy to encourage other website owners to open their forums to you if you agree to really post honesty (which means no lying) as well as if you behave yourself and agree not to hijack threads.
Deal?
I think it would be a good idea to rename the board “The Research-Based Investing Strategies Board.” That would send a signal that it is the research that matters, not any one individual’s personal opinions.
One of the things that I most like about Bogle is that he popularized the idea of rooting one’s investing strategies in the peer-reviewed research. But of course he is human like all the rest of us. I think it would be fair to say that in recent years he has allowed his own ego issues to take precedence over his belief that people should be following the peer-reviewed research wherever it takes them. Those of us who admire Bogle should be encouraging him to return to his roots and to come our strongly in support of the idea of permitting honest posting on the post-1981 research at “his” board.
Changing the name to “The Research-Based Investing Strategies Board” takes the pressure off Bogle. It places the focus where it should be, on the research, which of course evolves over time. The research tells a different story as new insights are developed. I think it would be fair to say at this point in the proceedings that individual humans sometimes struggle to evidence the flexibility needed to give the proper respect to important new research findings.
I hate the idea of calling it “Bennettheads Forum. What the heck makes me so special? If Bogle could make big mistakes, I am 100 percent certain that I could do the same. I don’t want the responsibility. I’d rather just put the focus on the research and let Bogle offer his take and let Shiller offer his take and let Pfau offer his take and let Bennett offer his take and let the thousands of readers listen to all of the various honest takes and decide for themselves which one makes the most sense for them.
The strength of the board is the research orientation that it at least purports to follow. Its greatest weakness is the personal garbage that we see evidence itself when people feel that their personal opinions may no longer be questioned. We should do what we can to benefit from our strengths and to diminish the negative impact of the personal garbage that has done us all so much harm in recent years.
Those are my sincere thoughts re this terribly important matter, in any event.
Rob
We would be happy to encourage other website owners to open their forums to you if you agree to really post honesty (which means no lying) as well as if you behave yourself and agree not to hijack threads.
Deal?
The devil is in the details, Anonymous.
The point of contention for 15 years now has been whether I am willing to pretend that Greaney included a valuations adjustment in his retirement study. I don’t believe that he included one and I am not willing to say that I believe that he included one.
I am okay with saying that Greaney personally believes that a 4 percent withdrawal is always safe. I think that he could pass a lie detector test if he were asked whether he believes that 4 percent is always safe and answered “yes.” But I don’t believe that he would pass a lie detector test if he were asked whether he included a valuations adjustment in his retirement study and he answered “yes.”
People of good will can work these things out. I will bend over backwards to work things out if opportunities are presented to do so in a way that passes minimal ethical standards. It is not ethical for me to say that I believe that there is a valuations adjustment in the study when thousands of people have looked at it and not one has ever been able to identify one. And I can’t act like it doesn’t matter when there is 36 years of peer-reviewed research showing that valuations affect long-term returns and when I believe that that research is legitimate research.
We do not believe the same things about how stock investing works, Anonymous. We need to be up front about that. And we need to drop the use of all intimidation tactics. We all have to acknowledge openly and clearly that there are two schools of academic thought as to how stock investing works and celebrate that reality because of the learning experience it opens to us all to have our views questioned and challenged and thereby sharpened over time.
I have never once in my lifetime given the tiniest bit of consideration to the idea of hijacking a thread and never in 15 billion years would I give the tiniest bit of consideration to the idea of doing that. You consider it highjacking for me to express views consistent with Shiller’s research rather than Fama’s research. I don’t see it that way. I feel strongly that I have an OBLIGATION and a RESPONSIBILITY to express my sincere views with every post I advance.
You have an obligation and responsibility to express your sincere views too. If you were attacked for putting up posts in support of Buy-and-Hold, I would speak out in favor of your right to post honestly in two seconds. So I want the same thing for you that I am demanding for myself and for all other Valuation-Informed Indexers. But the demand that honest posting on the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research in this field be permitted is non-negotiable. A board that does not permit honest posting by all community members is a corrupt enterprise. I don’t say that to hurt your feelings. I say it because it is so and it is an important reality that must be acknowledge if we are to make the changes that we need to make to insure that we experience less conflict in the next 15 years than we have experienced in the past 15.
I hope that helps at least a small bit.
Rob
“The devil is in the details, Anonymous.
The point of contention for 15 years now has been whether I am willing to pretend that Greaney included a valuations adjustment in his retirement study. I don’t believe that he included one and I am not willing to say that I believe that he included one.”
Of course you know that is not the reason you have been banned at all the boards. Just saying that indicates you were banned for a good reason as you can’t even tell the truth on even one simple thing.
I wish you the best of luck in all your future life endeavors, Anonymous.
I hope that helps a small bit.
Rob
“Valuations have been affecting long-term returns for 148 years now. ”
They sure do, for bonds as well as stocks. Expected returns for both are lower than what we’ve seen over the past few decades. So what? Doesn’t make a buy, hold and re-balance portfolio an invalid choice.
Stocks might drop, then again they might double – just like they did when valuations were high five years ago.
It absolutely makes Buy-and-Hold an invalid choice, Anonymous.
When the expected return is lower, the risk/reward analysis changes. So your stock allocation should change.
Now —
Some changes in the risk/reward analysis might not be big enough to require a change. So there are going to be some judgment calls as to whether a change is needed and as to how big a change is appropriate. The fact that judgment calls are required is all more reason why honest posting must be permitted. We need to hear from people holding all sorts of perspectives to accumulate all of the inputs we need to make the best possible judgment calls. The worst thing in the world would be to only hear from one segment of the community. Then you get a slanted view. That hurts every single investor alive and helps precisely no one.
I agree with you that stock prices might drop or might double again. That’s not under dispute. The question under dispute is — Does the risk/reward analysis change when valuations change? Up to a point, you seem to be agreeing that it does. But then you pull back and suggest that there’s no need to quantify how big a change there has been in the risk/reward profile and how big a change investors need to make in their stock allocations in response. I strongly believe that we all should be trying to quantify this stuff.
I am in favor of more discussion and of more research and of more quantification. You are in favor of blind obedience to Buy-and-Hold dogmas. That’s the difference between us. You want to shut down discussion of the most important investment-related questions and I want to open up discussion to include all research-based findings, both those from before 1981 and those from after that point in time.
Rob
Your “risk/reward analysis” had you predicting a 65% crash in 2010. Instead it’s gone from 10K to 25K.
This is all anyone will ever need to know about your theories. So you might as well stop talking.
There are web sites that perform numbers analyses to predict how many games the various major league baseball teams will win in a year. If an analysis said “Team A will likely lose somewhere between 90 games and 100 games this year” and then then at the halfway point of a 162-game season, Team A had 44 losses,” I would not conclude that the statistical tools used to generate that prediction were faulty. That’s a result within the range of what you would expect to see if the statistical tools were working properly.
So it is with the stock market performance we have seen in recent years. Everything is as you would expect if the market is in the process of once again performing in the manner in which the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research shows it has always performed in the past. The suggestion in your comment is that stock prices never rise markedly higher when they are already priced to crash. Stock prices reach dangerously high levels when investors are highly emotional. Highly emotional investors often send stock prices to even more dangerous levels. Isn’t that the emotional thing to do?
You seem to be suggesting that a delay in the crash makes a big difference. It doesn’t. The crash will wipe out investors who are heavily invested in stocks when it arrives. It won’t matter that they appeared to be doing okay a few years before the crash arrived. If you are wiped out, you pay the penalty for investing in an emotional way. Stocks have been performing poorly for 18 years running now, but we have not yet seen a wipe-out that remained in place for a long time. But the last 36 years of peer-reviewed research shows that we will see that. When we do, you will be so far behind where you would have been had you followed a research-bases strategy, that you will never be able to catch up.
I wish you the best of luck with your strategy, Anonymous. But I am sticking with the research-based approach. I don’t need to employ death threats or demands for unjustified board bannings or thousands of acts of defamation or threats to get academic researchers fired from their jobs to “defend” my choice of investing strategies. That’s because mine is rooted in something more than a Get Rich Quick urge. I enjoy the feeling of confidence that comes from following a strategy rooted in research, not emotion.
I’ll keep talking. And I’ll still be talking after the next price crash hits. I love my country and so that is how I am going to proceeds. And we will find out together how things play out at that time.
I hope that works for you, old friend.
Rob
“then at the halfway point of a 162-game season, Team A had 44 losses, I would not conclude that the statistical tools used to generate that prediction were faulty.”
Yeah, that’s a 2 percent miss. You called for a crash that at the time would have taken the Dow to 3500. You missed by over 700 percent. The word for that isn’t “faulty”. There is no single word for it. You’d need a phrase, something like “twisting, burning train wreck on top of a dumpster fire inside a toxic waste dump”.
We don’t agree, Anonymous.
If someone pointed out that in January 1929, stock prices looked dangerous and then they shot up in the following months before crashing later that year, would you say that they were wrong? I sure wouldn’t. I would say that they were right on.
The annualized real return on the S&P 500 (counting dividends) for the past 18 years is 3.3 percent. TIPS were available in 2000 paying a risk-free 4 percent real. TIPS have been trouncing stocks on a risk-adjusted basis for 18 years running now. And a return just to fair-value price levels would mean a 50 percent price drop for stocks. Huh? That’s what you’re bragging about.
Valuation-Informed Indexing has been far superior to Buy-and-Hold for 148 years running now. For a very good reason. Price matters when buying ANYTHING. Including stocks. Those who tell you otherwise are working a con. Perhaps on themselves as well as on you. But still.
The reason why I was once a Buy-and-Holder myself is that I believed the claim that the Buy-and-Holders make that their strategy is research-based. The day that I learned that that was a lie is the day that I became a Valuation-Informed Indexer. Research-based strategies don’t often beat out Get Rich Quick strategies in the short term. But they always beat them out in the long term. I have a funny feeling that things are going to play out this time much as they always have in the past.
But we’ll see, you know?
I wish you the best of luck with it, in any event.
Rob
You’d need a phrase, something like “twisting, burning train wreck on top of a dumpster fire inside a toxic waste dump”.
That’s why Wade Pfau’s conclusion after studying Valuation-Informed Indexing in great depth for many months was: “Yes, Virginia, Valuation-Informed Indexing works!”
Makes sense!
Rob
We have only your word that Wade ever said that, or ever even mentioned VII by name. He certainly says nothing of the kind today. In fact, to you, he says nothing at all.
Wade will be called to testify at your trial, Anonymous. I have a funny feeling that he will testify honestly when he is put under oath. Then the members of your jury will determine the length of your prison sentence. That’s how our system works.
I hope that sounds good to you.
Rob