NoFeeBoards.com!

No Fees! No Ads! No Spam!

Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index

Tossing coins
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » FIRE Board
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent post, Chips.

I don't personally think that a 20% drop in single day is that much of a problem. If you FIREd based up a reasonable valuation and the market after during FIRE was overvalued then a 20% drop is no problem per se. If you understand that such drops can happen from time to time then it is par for the course and you do what you did, keep on DCA your investments. If however we saw 20% loss 3-4 days in a row that might be more of a course for concern but then you have to ask yourself, has the business economy just gone to shit in a handbasket or is it simply temporary negative selling? Short-term movements are not the problem, long term poor results are far more of issue to someone playing the long game as any FIREd or wannabee FIREd investor needs to be.

I remember my father telling me at the dinner table that the market dropped a lot today and he lost more money than he dare tell me. But I never heard anything much before or since about the "market" to put that in context. This is a man who understood the internet boom and bust for what it was and compared it to railway building a century or more before it. In that context even he should not have been too concerned.

Petey
therealchips wrote:
The author says "only two years" but during that period, we didn't know how long it would take to recover from that stunning one-day loss. It is easier to be calm about that period in retrospect, knowing how it would come out, than it was living through it without such knowledge. This may not be the worst case that hocus had in mind, but the crash of 1987 is the worst day I have seen personally as an investor for forty years.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
therealchips
*** Veteran


Joined: 04 Jan 2003
Posts: 174
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 9:43 am    Post subject: Market performance and inflation do not completely determine Reply with quote

Even perfect foreknowledge of market performance and inflation do not completely determine what a planner's withdrawals should be.

Hocus said:
Quote:
I see no reason why one could not use the SWR concept as the first step in the process of determining a PWR in accord with your goal of maximizing the utility of withdrawals over the course of a retirement. You need to begin with a validly calculated SWR, I don't see how you can get anywhere without that. But I see no reason why it would not be possible to develop a changing PWR rooted in the investment realities revealed in the valid SWR analysis but also incorporating additional data re your utility of money concerns.


I think my approach to planning retirement spending is deficient in that it ignores market and inflation data except by summarizing each of them as a single number. I think the available SWR work is deficient in that it ignores the planner's own utility function for money and his life expectancy, other than taking a fixed time period as the planning horizon. (Both approaches are deficient in omitting the planner's income tax situation.) I do not at the moment see how to combine these approaches, much as I would like to see the results of that combination.

It simply is not true that I need to start with a validly calculated SWR to demonstrate the significance of the planner's personal utility function and his life expectancy. As your time and interest permit, please consider the topic "The Utility of Money and Personal Life Expectancy" that I
started Friday, May 30, 2003 on the FIRE board. Its latest post was June 4, 2003. JohnR commented there, as I recall, so I know he is aware of the thread. The URL for the start of this thread is
[url]http://www.nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=956 [/url]. My discussion there demonstrates that, even with perfect knowledge ahead of time on market returns and inflation, withdrawal rates still depend on personal utility functions and life expectancy. I made simplifying assumption on market and inflation performance to bring out that conclusion. I don't think it is mathematically challenging to understand the spreadsheet results I posted in that thread. Certainly I intended them to be readily understandable. Still, I'm happy to answer questions about them.



_________________
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
therealchips
*** Veteran


Joined: 04 Jan 2003
Posts: 174
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 10:32 am    Post subject: S&P 500 Companies invest outside the US Reply with quote

I agree with Petey that it would be interesting to see data on the correlation or lack of correlation between various investment options, followed by an analysis of whether this condition will persist and whether an investor can exploit it profitably. Lacking that information, I am more than content to invest in just the US market.

This does not mean that I have no exposure to the economies of other countries. I have seen at estimate from 1997 that 35% of the earnings of S&P500 companies comes from their operations outside the US. That number may have grown since then. I read, for example, that GE recently hired three hundred lawyers in India, at the price of thirty lawyers in the States.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6296-5065507.html
Quote:
Combine the outflow of the H1-B workforce and the increased number of technical professionals being produced by countries such as Russia, India, China, Korea, and Hong Kong, and the technical workforce overseas dwarfs that of the United States. Moreover, you can really hire a full-fledged rocket scientist - recently released from Russia's space program - for less than $40,000 per year.

India has huge technology centers where well-trained, articulate programmers can be contracted for $1,000 to $5,000 per month without the overhead associated with U.S. workers (health care costs, insurance, hiring and firing costs, etc.). And major companies, including GE, IBM, and Microsoft, are all setting up "development factories" in emerging countries such as India. They do this not only to reduce their software development costs, but also to be in a position to take advantage of opportunities in those countries as their economies grow from the resulting influx of new capital.

It's not just the big companies that are taking advantage of this phenomenon. I get at least two calls per week from companies offering to outsource the design and development of large business software systems for a third to half of what it would cost me to contract or employ the same resources here. Many consulting firms have begun replacing their development teams with high-level product and program management resources and contracts with offshore development groups to actually produce the final product.

The types of jobs being outsourced have begun to change as well. It used to be just software developers, but with the ubiquity of high-speed network access and the ability to move a packet of data or voice from anywhere to anywhere, companies are finding that they can outsource jobs that can be done at the other end of a piece of wire. The first jobs to move have been the help desk and customer support services for large manufacturing and technology companies. Companies have found that they can cut their cost per call by 50 to 90 percent by letting someone from India - who speaks better English than most Americans - take the customer support calls from their customers.



_________________
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
therealchips
*** Veteran


Joined: 04 Jan 2003
Posts: 174
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:04 am    Post subject: Links on Expected Value Theory and Expected Utility Theory Reply with quote

Petey the Person:
Quote:
Wonderful stuff. I was wondering where you get it. While my equations and knowledge of economics is limited to date, I would be interested to consider any books you recommend.


Thanks, Petey. I learned about it from professors whom I remember by name these many years later. Arthur Geoffrion. Glenn Graves. Richard Bellman. Robert Kalaba. David Wismer.

I searched on line for the table of contents of current introductory economics texts, such as Mankiw's, to see if they cover utility theory. I couldn't find their contents. The subject of utility theory might come up in economics, operations research, engineering design, mathematical psychology, and probably elsewhere too. My textbooks from the sixties are probably too old and too technical for your purposes. I'll keep looking for reference books.

Finding the relevant information, written recently and freely available on line, would be helpful too, so that people can read up on the subject without delay or cost. In the reference I gave you, there is a URL for gummy's presentation on utility theory. Here is another link for a clear and concise introduction to expected utility theory: http://www.calculemus.org/logica/log-ekon/exprobab-zad.html I wish I had written it. Very Happy Please give me your reaction.



_________________
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
raddr
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 265

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 12:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Is the S&P 500 actually two asset classes, LcG and L Reply with quote

therealchips wrote:
If I read this correctly, raddr is referring to me and to my S&P 500 index dominated investments as a single asset class and more specifically, to the S&P 500 as Large Capitalization Growth stocks. I may not have been adequately diversified from raddr's point of view, but referring to the S&P 500 Index as a single asset class strikes me as strange. Aren't both Large Capitalization Growth and Large Capitalization Value, by definition, half the value of the S&P 500? (That's not a rhetorical question. I'm somewhat in the dark since I don't do slice and dice. Your comments are welcome. ) As I understand it, my S&P 500 investment is half LcG and half LcV. As I see it, I made a big bet on these two asset classes, comprising more than 80% of the total value in the US stock market.


Hi Chips,

Good question. Sorry for the confusion.

Most slice & dicers like myself look at fundamental valuation data for the market as a whole and do not limit ourselves to someone else's definition of an index, in this case the S&P's concept of LcV and LcV. I tend to follow Fama & French and Wm. Bernstein who would take the whole market and split it into segments based on market cap and book value.

F&F split the market into six pieces: LcG, LcB, LcV ScG, ScB, and ScV. There are about 1000 stocks in their Lc universe and 3000-4000 in their Sc universe. If you look at F&F's "large caps" you'll find that they include pretty much the whole midcap classification, as defined by S&P, plus the S&P500 stocks. At the end of 2002, P/B ratios for F&F's LcG, LcB, and LcV were about 6, 1.75, and 0.85, respectively. The corresponding P/B ratios for S&P's LcG and LcV were about 6 and 2, respectively.

Therefore, if you look at the market as a whole the entire S&P500 subset really consists of LcG and, to a little lesser extent, LcB. There really is very little value component in the entire S&P500 mix. This is not a trivial distinction. It is important because the studies that show that value has a better risk-adjusted performance profile than growth do not use the S&P500 definitions but rather follow the F&F/Bernstein models.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 12:35 pm    Post subject: Re: S&P 500 Companies invest outside the US Reply with quote

Chips,
therealchips wrote:
This does not mean that I have no exposure to the economies of other countries. I have seen at estimate from 1997 that 35% of the earnings of S&P500 companies comes from their operations outside the US. That number may have grown since then. I read, for example, that GE recently hired three hundred lawyers in India, at the price of thirty lawyers in the States.


This is a common comment/mistake made by investors.

It is true that you do have some exposure to international business, however the benefit of investing abroad is that some other markets can do well while your US stocks do poorly. By having your money only in the US market, you're completely tied to its performance. If you have a substained drop with limited dividend income along the way, you'll have problems. However if you had a mixed equity exposure with more direct ownership of international equities via a mutual fund, some of those investments would be up when others are down. If you owned REITS too then you might see regular income as property is on a different investment cycle. This all helps living off your investments in good and bad years and prevents you having all your eggs in underperforming allocations.

As you are already living off your assets however, I think you are unlikely to change your mind on this issue. You seem happy where you are! Laughing

Petey


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 12:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Links on Expected Value Theory and Expected Utility Theo Reply with quote

Chips,

In the back of my mind I have a plan to sit down and read some economics books as well as learn some advanced math to handle to formulas..

I was reading some articles on investomedia.com (or something closely called that) which was quite instructive. I'll read your link and let you know.

Petey
therealchips wrote:
Petey the Person:

Finding the relevant information, written recently and freely available on line, would be helpful too, so that people can read up on the subject without delay or cost. In the reference I gave you, there is a URL for gummy's presentation on utility theory. Here is another link for a clear and concise introduction to expected utility theory: http://www.calculemus.org/logica/log-ekon/exprobab-zad.html I wish I had written it. Very Happy Please give me your reaction.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
therealchips
*** Veteran


Joined: 04 Jan 2003
Posts: 174
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the clarification, raddr.



_________________
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
hocus
Moderator


Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can either have a study of the maximal surviving withdrawal rate for a given historical period or you can have a study of investor behaviour but I don't see how you can combine the two.

Given that investor behavior has always affected the maximal surviving withdrawal rate, how would you propose going about the business of determining the maximal surviving withdrawal rate without taking investor behavior into account in doing so? It cannot be done.

I don't see where hocus or jwr have done this.

The work of the SWR board is not complete, that's for sure. We are barely just getting started!

The greater the number of community members who roll up their sleeves and pitch in, the sooner we will find our way to the promised land of knowing what the historical data says re SWRs. I hope that the day will come when you find your way to helping out with the project instead of taking pot shots from outside the gates of the community doing all the work, ataloss.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 559

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Given that investor behavior has always affected the maximal surviving withdrawal rate, how would you propose going about the business of determining the maximal surviving withdrawal rate without taking investor behavior into account in doing so? It cannot be done.


But you are changing the subject again. I think everyone understands that aggregate investor behavior drives markets which will influence swr. I never said otherwise. Intercst has an artificial study which gives some insight into what level of withdrawals would have been safe. If index funds existed, and if the hypothetical investor rebalanced annually over a 30 year period according to the initial plan and if other conditions were met the swr would be whatever intercst says.
Quote:
The greater the number of community members who roll up their sleeves and pitch in, the sooner we will find our way to the promised land of knowing what the historical data says re SWRs. I hope that the day will come when you find your way to helping out with the project instead of taking pot shots from outside the gates of the community doing all the work, ataloss.


One of the problems is that I don't know what you are talking about. Are you determining what investors in the depression or some other difficult period of time would have done with their portfolio allocation given human nature? How are you going to do this? I haven't seen anything resembling this on the hocus board. I haven't seen any attempt to even state how this would be done. You are taking potshots at intercst's study so I thought you would have an idea for an alternative. I have been very disappointed to see that you have nothing.

This "insight:"
Quote:
To know what sort of safe withdrawal applies to real-life investors, you need to know what sort of investors they are. That's what determines how they will respond to the price drops that make the high growth associated with this asset class possible. Not all investors will respond the same.


doesn't seem to be matched with a method to determine the real life swr
or even an idea of how it might be done.

If you will clearly state (in 100 words or less) what progress you have made in swr analysis I know it would help me a lot.

I think Petey's comment about the insularity of Americans is interesting and important- but he hasn't made some wild claim that this can be factored in to swr analysis to give a more correct answer.



_________________
Have fun.

Ataloss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raddr
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 265

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:49 pm    Post subject: Re: S&P 500 Companies invest outside the US Reply with quote

peteyperson wrote:

...This is a common comment/mistake made by investors.

It is true that you do have some exposure to international business, however the benefit of investing abroad is that some other markets can do well while your US stocks do poorly.


Very true. In fact, if you look within the S&P500 at the price performance of the companies with significant int'l exposure vs. those with mostly domestic exposure you'll see that their returns are pretty highly correlated. You don't get the full diversification effects of int'l equities unless you invest in companies outside the US and don't hedge the currency.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
raddr
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 265

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hocus wrote:
I hope that the day will come when you find your way to helping out with the project instead of taking pot shots from outside the gates of the community doing all the work, ataloss


LOL - so I guess that what ataloss, myself, and others have contributed to the subject of SRWs is nil? Laughing Hocus, this type of arrogant remark is precisely why hell will freeze over before I post anything on your board, and I am not alone.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
[KenM]
*** Veteran


Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

raddr
Quote:
This is why diversification is so critical. You can sustain a big loss in later years of retirement if you had good gains early on. However, a big loss right off the the bat can have devastating consequences to a retirement portfolio. If you make a big bet on a single asset class at the beginning of the withdrawal phase, in this case LcG, and it gets clobbered early then you better lower your withdrawal rate or face likely disaster
.........but doesn't the S&P500 generally correlate with "the market"? - would diversification in proportion to the total market have made much difference to the 30% loss from the 1999 top? It seems to me that S&D with emphasis on certain asset classes is an attempt to beat "the market" - which I don't have a problem with Laughing- but although it may avoid bubbles and sharp drops it also has the potential to underperform for the investment timeframe of a retiree.



_________________
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
[KenM]
*** Veteran


Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

petey
Quote:
If it were me I would want to research the history of the markets (and other asset classes besides) to determine how they operate, what the returns have been and see how they are valued at present.
I have meant to mention this in response to some of your posts in other threads, but I suggest that you are far too rational in the way you are looking at investing in markets. There can be all sorts of views on "fair valuations" but if you look at past data you may find that you have to wait more than 20 years before the market agrees with you. Most peoples' investment timeframes are 20 years or so and that, in many cases is not the "long run" and is not enough time for the market to see sense and mean revert. The full quote of "we are all dead in the long run" is very appropriate.



_________________
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
therealchips
*** Veteran


Joined: 04 Jan 2003
Posts: 174
Location: Henderson, Nevada, USA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
LOL - so I guess that what ataloss, myself, and others have contributed to the subject of SRWs is nil? Hocus, this type of arrogant remark is precisely why hell will freeze over before I post anything on your board, and I am not alone.

Yeah, that was basically my reaction. I'm rather pleased with the concepts of total expected utility, and making some use of standard mortality tables in planning retirement. I have demonstrated, to my own satisfaction at least, that these concepts matter too in financial planning. Further, I just hate lectures on what my moral responsibilities are. Hocus must have had some stern task-masters when he was a boy.



_________________
He who has lived obscurely and quietly has lived well. [Latin: Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.]

Chips
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
[KenM]
*** Veteran


Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chips
Quote:
How did other people respond to the 1987 crash?
In the 80's I turned a small sum into a large sum by trading and leverage. Somewhere around the 1987 bottom I chickened out and sold just about everything Embarassed. I didn't lose any of my original capital but didn't keep very much of my vast profits either. With hindsight I should have been sensible and DCA'd for the last 30 years ........ but that's very boring Laughing



_________________
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raddr
*** Veteran


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 265

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KenM wrote:
.........but doesn't the S&P500 generally correlate with "the market"? - would diversification in proportion to the total market have made much difference to the 30% loss from the 1999 top?


Hi Ken,

The S&P500 is heavily cap weighted which means that the biggest 20-30 names dominate the returns (and were the biggest participants in the 90's bubble). Since these are mostly growth stocks you have an index which performs as if it were LcG. OTOH if you had an equal-weighted portfolio of LcG, LcV, ScG, and ScV then you would've avoided much of the carnage since 3/4ths of your equity holdings would've been comprised of stocks that weren't caught up in the bubble. By my calculations you would be down by only about half as much with the S&D portfolio described above. Throw in judicious amounts of int'l, REITS, gold, etc. and you might not be down at all. Very Happy

I've looked at SWRs for TSM vs. diversified portfolios and the diversified portfolios are the clear winners. In fact, I believe that a properly diversifiedretiree could in some instances safely withdraw 50% or more compared to the TSM holders.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
wanderer
*** Veteran


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 363
Location: anytown, usa

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The S&P500 is heavily cap weighted which means that the biggest 20-30 names dominate the returns (and were the biggest participants in the 90's bubble). Since these are mostly growth stocks you have an index which performs as if it were LcG. OTOH if you had an equal-weighted portfolio of LcG, LcV, ScG, and ScV then you would've avoided much of the carnage since 3/4ths of your equity holdings would've been comprised of stocks that weren't caught up in the bubble. By my calculations you would be down by only about half as much with the S&D portfolio described above. Throw in judicious amounts of int'l, REITS, gold, etc. and you might not be down at all.

I just went back and looked at our allocation at the bubble's height (12/1999):

32% int'l (didn't remember it being that big)
31% real estate (didn't remember it being that big)
31% LC (mostly growth)
4% cash
2% mid cap

Just before the massive down turn of 2002, US LCG was 18%.

All I remember was thinking how crazy everything seemed from June 1995 on in the US LCG arena. Those VEIEX/VPACX invts are looking pretty good over the last 5 yrs.

No wonder this recession/depression has been so tolerable.



_________________
regards,

wanderer

The field has eyes / the wood has ears / I will see / be silent and hear
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wanderer
*** Veteran


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 363
Location: anytown, usa

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL - so I guess that what ataloss, myself, and others have contributed to the subject of SRWs is nil? Hocus, this type of arrogant remark is precisely why hell will freeze over before I post anything on your board, and I am not alone.

Well, I have held off as long as I could. Wink

I think, raddr, according to hocus' style book, the best way to build a community and invite the broadest possible participation is to alienate the most useful posters. Yet another 'brilliant' insight.

I wonder, is it a 'word game' to write impenetrable, 1,000 word posts and take credit for what others have done far more to advance? And does (pointlessly) raising the question of who has done the most and thereby diverting board energy consitute being an obstacle to debate?

I repeat an earlier assertion: I have learned far more in the last year from Oliver (fixed income and inflation indexed bonds), raddr (mean reversion modified Monte and asset allocation), FMO (real estate valuation), than I have learned from Martin Luther Hocus. In fact, I suspect that hocus has driven off potentially useful posters who didn't want to put up with his iriitating 'pop up' ads, thereby actually 'costing' the community.

Well, back to the swimming pool.



_________________
regards,

wanderer

The field has eyes / the wood has ears / I will see / be silent and hear
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 525

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

raddr,

This is really an appalling arrogance to continue display after it has been pointed out numberous times already. I am kind of shocked at hocus though by now I really shouldn't be.

I can see a book coming out claiming all sorts of "new" ideas many of which will come out of discussions here.

Petey
raddr wrote:
hocus wrote:
I hope that the day will come when you find your way to helping out with the project instead of taking pot shots from outside the gates of the community doing all the work, ataloss


LOL - so I guess that what ataloss, myself, and others have contributed to the subject of SRWs is nil? Laughing Hocus, this type of arrogant remark is precisely why hell will freeze over before I post anything on your board, and I am not alone.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » FIRE Board All times are GMT - 9 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
Designed for Trushkin.net | Styles Database