Sometime back I read an article that recommended to not reinvest Divs and
CGs back in the fund, that it was best to send them to a money market acc
set up for that purpose. It made sense at the time. I did that but now am
having second thoughts. Any one know anything about this subject. thanks
bill
P.S. this is a taxable acc.
--
"BillyGoat" <> wrote in message
news:
> Sometime back I read an article that recommended to not reinvest Divs and
> CGs back in the fund, that it was best to send them to a money market acc
> set up for that purpose. It made sense at the time. I did that but now am
> having second thoughts. Any one know anything about this subject. thanks
> bill
> P.S. this is a taxable acc.
That is what I do on the theory that I want to choose what my next
investment will be rather than doing something automatically. If you decide
that the fund that just paid a dividend is the one you would choose, just
put the money back in.
Also, if these are taxable accounts, you may need the cash to pay your
estimated income tax.
-herb
"BillyGoat" <> wrote in message
news:
> Sometime back I read an article that recommended to not reinvest Divs and
> CGs back in the fund, that it was best to send them to a money market acc
> set up for that purpose. It made sense at the time. I did that but now am
> having second thoughts. Any one know anything about this subject. thanks
> bill
> P.S. this is a taxable acc.
....I always reinvest. I try to keep funds with typically high payouts in
sheltered accounts. There are probably reasons one might have for putting
distributions in a MM fund but I can't think of any real good ones.
Once or twice each year I look at each of my funds and ask myself if I would
buy them today. If I wouldn't then they have a good chance of being sold.
BillyGoat wrote:
> Sometime back I read an article that recommended to not reinvest Divs and
> CGs back in the fund, that it was best to send them to a money market acc
> set up for that purpose. It made sense at the time. I did that but now am
> having second thoughts. Any one know anything about this subject. thanks
> bill
> P.S. this is a taxable acc.
>
I don't reinvest in my taxable account because of the accounting issue.
I want to control my buy in points so I know my precise cost basis.
In my IRA accounts I do reinvest.
> --
"PeterL" <> wrote
> I don't reinvest in my taxable account because of the accounting issue.
What accounting issue?
> I want to control my buy in points
Ok...
so I know my precise cost basis.
....you're losing me again.
Let us say you put 10K into a fund. Now every time you look at your
balance you know the starting point. But if they automatically reinvest
your divs and cap gains, your cost basis goes up. So it muddies the
picture. If you use the funds software to show the cost basis, after a
while it will say maybe 10,410. And the current value is 15000. But you
only put 10k in to start with. So in terms of total return your cost
basis is 10k, not the 10,410 the fund is reporting. This makes you have
to look at the transactions to figure out what your original investment
was. For taxes, it doesn't really matter, the fund sends you the
correct amount to figure your taxes each year. But for figuring your
total return, it does complicate things a little to reinvest your divs
and interest.
When I first started investing, I read the standard articles that
recommended to do automatic re-investing. They showed an extremely
compelling chart comparing your gains if you did re-investing vs not.
So I followed their advice.
Then later when I sold the stock, that's when I found out what a
tremendous pain in the butt it was to calculate cost basis. And to deal
with 50.017 shares of stock. You can't sell fractional shares of stock,
so the brokerage has to do it for you in a separate transaction. (Once,
I sold a stock on the last day of the year, but the 0.017 was not
processed until the next day, so I had to report 0.017 the following
year. Arg!).
Another thing I realized was that the articles I read were comparing
automatic re-investing vs. removing your dividends altogether. That's
not realistic. Most people will re-invest it later or at least have it
in a money market. So there really is no performance disadvantage to
not automatically re-investing.
Conclusion: Since there is no performance advantage to automatic
re-investing, it mostly comes down to personal preference:
Automatic re-investing:
- You can leave it alone and forget about your fund
Manual re-investing:
- You decide where to invest the pooled dividends (maybe choose the
fund that is undervalued)
- Allows for micro-allocation/balancing (especially useful for
Vanguard, which has ultra-strict exchange rules)
- Don't have to deal with fractional shares (more relevant for stocks)
- Easier to calculate cost basis
"Doug" <> wrote
> Let us say you put 10K into a fund. Now every time you look at your
> balance you know the starting point. But if they automatically reinvest
> your divs and cap gains, your cost basis goes up.
So does the share count.
> So it muddies the
> picture.
Never had a problem, but ok.
> If you use the funds software to show the cost basis, after a
> while it will say maybe 10,410. And the current value is 15000. But you
> only put 10k in to start with. So in terms of total return your cost
> basis is 10k, not the 10,410 the fund is reporting.
It's the $10,410 the software is reporting. Reinvesting is the exact same
thing as buying more shares with new money for all practical purposes.
> This makes you have
> to look at the transactions to figure out what your original investment
> was.
With my eyes closed, the original investment was $10,000.
> For taxes, it doesn't really matter, the fund sends you the
> correct amount to figure your taxes each year. But for figuring your
> total return, it does complicate things a little to reinvest your divs
> and interest.
Reinvested distributions are part of the total return, no different than if
you took the money in cash.
I've heard this argument before and I really don't know where people on your
side of it are coming from. I can understand Herb's reasoning, I just don't
agree with it. I can't understand your reasoning at all.
Ed wrote:
> "PeterL" <> wrote
>
> > I don't reinvest in my taxable account because of the accounting issue.
>
> What accounting issue?
>
> > I want to control my buy in points
>
> Ok...
>
> so I know my precise cost basis.
>
> ...you're losing me again.
Well, I don't want to keep track of every 10.328 shares of purchases.
I keep dividends in MM funds until I get a big enough wad to buy 1,000
share at a time.
"Bucky" <> wrote
> Conclusion: Since there is no performance advantage to automatic
> re-investing, it mostly comes down to personal preference:
I strongly disagree. I'm talking about funds and not stocks. If you really
believe that there is no difference then this may not convince you:
If you invested $1 in T-bills (money market) at year end 1925 and cashed out
at year end 1997 you would have $14.
If you invested $1 in small caps at year end 1925 and cashed out at year end
1997 you would have $5520.
If you invested $1 in large caps at year end 1925 and cashed out at year end
1997 you would have $1,828.
Source: Ibbotson Assoc.
"Wealth Indices of Investments in the U.S. Capital Markets"
"PeterL" <> wrote
> Well, I don't want to keep track of every 10.328 shares of purchases.
> I keep dividends in MM funds until I get a big enough wad to buy 1,000
> share at a time.
Again, I don't understand your reasoning. What you are saying is that you're
lazy.
I think you are not doing your account any good.
I don't blame you. It didn't make much sense.
Not one of my better moments.
Just reinvest the divs and interest and remember your initial
investment (or look at the transactions and find it) and subtract that
from the from the current balance and you will have your total return.
That is what I do. But sometimes I can't find out my initial
investment. because it was so long ago it doesn't appear in the
transaction list.
NEVER MIND!!!!!
"Herb" <> wrote in message
news:82WAe.414539$
>
> "BillyGoat" <> wrote in message
> news:
> > Sometime back I read an article that recommended to not reinvest
> > Divs and CGs back in the fund, that it was best to send them to a
> > money market acc set up for that purpose. It made sense at the
> > time. I did that but now am having second thoughts. Any one
> > know anything about this subject. thanks
> > bill
> > P.S. this is a taxable acc.
>
> That is what I do on the theory that I want to choose what my next
> investment will be rather than doing something automatically. If you
> decide that the fund that just paid a dividend is the one you would
> choose, just put the money back in.
Some places (I know Fidelity does this) provide the ability to direct
dividends to a different fund. I've used this when I've wanted to get out
of a fund, but for tax reasons, didn't want to completely divest in a single
year. The point is that if you know where you want to be investing, the
process can still be automatic.
What do you do with your IRAs? With your employer-sponsored plan (e.g.
401k)? The reason you gave for handling reinvestments manually (more
control) would seem to apply equally well to these types of accounts.
Periodically, Saxton (R, NJ) proposes legislation to make the first $N
thousand of fund capital gains tax-deferred *if you automatically reinvest*.
This might make one more inclined to automatically reinvest gains
distributions (but not dividend distributions); but it creates the problem
of knowing when to stop (when $N thousand has been reinvested in a year).
If one relies on the fund company (or broker) to do cost accounting (average
cost, single category), then I don't see cost accounting as a significant
concern. (I rarely use this cost method, because it usually comes out more
expensive than specific shares, though it can help when liquidating a
position in a fallen market.)
Fidelity, and perhaps some other places, provides both FIFO and specific
share selling online (including automatically selecting the highest cost
shares, the lowest cost shares, the shares brining total gain/loss closest
to zero), again keeping track of the cost of shares sold for you.
FWIW, for most accounts, I reinvest distributions. When I don't, it tends
to be for a special case reason (such as the example of directed
distributions given above).
--
Mark Freeland
> "Bucky" <> wrote
> > Conclusion: Since there is no performance advantage to automatic
> > re-investing, it mostly comes down to personal preference:
Ed wrote:
> I strongly disagree. I'm talking about funds and not stocks. If you really
> believe that there is no difference then this may not convince you:
No, you're comparing to leaving all distributions in a money market
forever. Of course that would be a huge disadvantage.
I'm talking about having distributions re-invested in a money market,
then allocating it to your desired fund each month. There's no
performance disadvantage here. This also helps balance your allocation.
Vanguard is getting stricter all the time with their
redemption/exchange rules. For index funds, you can basically only
re-balance twice per 12 months. So this is way to keep things more
balanced.
Most people are not going to just leave all their distributions piling
up in a money market. But if you are one of those people, then you
should definitely do auto-reinvesting!
"Bucky" <> wrote in message
news:
> Vanguard is getting stricter all the time with their
> redemption/exchange rules. For index funds, you can basically only
> re-balance twice per 12 months. So this is way to keep things more
> balanced.
The rule I think you are referring to applies to much more than index funds
(that tells us where your mind is at :-).
Vanguard does restrict you to two exchanges out of a fund per 12 month
period - but only for electronic (including telephone) exchanges. You can
do more exchanges by mail. Since rebalancing shouldn't be time-critical,
this means that rebalancing isn't completely limited to twice per year.
Vanguard also restricts you to no more than two *substantive* round trips
per year, but rebalancing wouldn't be substantive (not big enough to
adversely affect the management of the fund), and two round trips would give
you four rebalancings anyway (e.g. sell in Q1, buy in Q2, sell in Q3, buy in
Q4).
Finally, Vanguard allows you to have distributions automatically invested
directly in other funds, so you don't need to go through a cash account.
(See "Dividend and capital gains options".)
--
Mark Freeland
"Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
news:ONXAe.3953$p%
> "Herb" <> wrote in message
> news:82WAe.414539$
> >
> > "BillyGoat" <> wrote in message
> > news:
> > > Sometime back I read an article that recommended to not reinvest
> > > Divs and CGs back in the fund, that it was best to send them to a
> > > money market acc set up for that purpose. It made sense at the
> > > time. I did that but now am having second thoughts. Any one
> > > know anything about this subject. thanks
> > > bill
> > > P.S. this is a taxable acc.
> >
> > That is what I do on the theory that I want to choose what my next
> > investment will be rather than doing something automatically. If you
> > decide that the fund that just paid a dividend is the one you would
> > choose, just put the money back in.
>
> Some places (I know Fidelity does this) provide the ability to direct
> dividends to a different fund. I've used this when I've wanted to get out
> of a fund, but for tax reasons, didn't want to completely divest in a
single
> year. The point is that if you know where you want to be investing, the
> process can still be automatic.
>
> What do you do with your IRAs? With your employer-sponsored plan (e.g.
> 401k)? The reason you gave for handling reinvestments manually (more
> control) would seem to apply equally well to these types of accounts.
>
> Periodically, Saxton (R, NJ) proposes legislation to make the first $N
> thousand of fund capital gains tax-deferred *if you automatically
reinvest*.
> This might make one more inclined to automatically reinvest gains
> distributions (but not dividend distributions); but it creates the problem
> of knowing when to stop (when $N thousand has been reinvested in a year).
>
>
> If one relies on the fund company (or broker) to do cost accounting
(average
> cost, single category), then I don't see cost accounting as a significant
> concern. (I rarely use this cost method, because it usually comes out
more
> expensive than specific shares, though it can help when liquidating a
> position in a fallen market.)
>
> Fidelity, and perhaps some other places, provides both FIFO and specific
> share selling online (including automatically selecting the highest cost
> shares, the lowest cost shares, the shares brining total gain/loss closest
> to zero), again keeping track of the cost of shares sold for you.
>
>
> FWIW, for most accounts, I reinvest distributions. When I don't, it tends
> to be for a special case reason (such as the example of directed
> distributions given above).
>
> --
> Mark Freeland
>
Mark:
It is, indeed, the Fidelity Directed Dividend feature that I use for all of
my accounts. They are all at Fidelity and I am self-employed.
I guess I will have to reconsider if Saxton ever gets his bill passed.
Personally, I think they have done quite enough to favor unearned income
over earned income.
Some of my Fidelity positions were so old that they do not give me cost
basis information on them.
-herb
"Bucky" <> wrote
> Ed wrote:
>> I strongly disagree. I'm talking about funds and not stocks. If you
>> really
>> believe that there is no difference then this may not convince you:
>
> No, you're comparing to leaving all distributions in a money market
> forever. Of course that would be a huge disadvantage.
No, I'm talking about the cumulative time that these distributions were left
out of the market. When the money's out iy isn't working for you. Over time
there is a 'performance disadvantage'.
> Most people are not going to just leave all their distributions piling
> up in a money market. But if you are one of those people, then you
> should definitely do auto-reinvesting!
That's cute but, I already stated the following:
"...I always reinvest. I try to keep funds with typically high payouts in
sheltered accounts. There are probably reasons one might have for putting
distributions in a MM fund but I can't think of any real good ones."
"Bucky" <> wrote
> > Most people are not going to just leave all their distributions piling
> > up in a money market. But if you are one of those people, then you
> > should definitely do auto-reinvesting!
Ed wrote:
> That's cute but, I already stated the following:
> "...I always reinvest. I try to keep funds with typically high payouts in
> sheltered accounts. There are probably reasons one might have for putting
> distributions in a MM fund but I can't think of any real good ones."
Don't take it personally, I meant plural "you". As in "if one is..."
"Bucky" <> wrote in message
news:
> "Bucky" <> wrote
>> > Most people are not going to just leave all their distributions piling
>> > up in a money market. But if you are one of those people, then you
>> > should definitely do auto-reinvesting!
>
> Ed wrote:
>> That's cute but, I already stated the following:
>> "...I always reinvest. I try to keep funds with typically high payouts in
>> sheltered accounts. There are probably reasons one might have for putting
>> distributions in a MM fund but I can't think of any real good ones."
>
> Don't take it personally, I meant plural "you". As in "if one is..."
I know, I'm not offended.
Ed wrote:
> No, I'm talking about the cumulative time that these distributions were left
> out of the market. Over time there is a 'performance disadvantage'.
Not a significant disadvantage. Your example showed that over 72 years,
you would have $1814 more for every $1 invested in large cap stocks
compared to t-bill/money market. This is true, but you have to take
this into the entire picture to put it in the proper context.
If you auto-reinvest a large cap stock fund, you have 100% in the fund.
Let's say you start with $100. If the historical average holds up, then
you'll have $182,800 72 years later.
What if you manually reinvest? Typical large cap funds yield about 2%
annually. So each quarter's distribution is 0.5%. Let's say you leave
the quarterly dividend in a money market for a month before
re-investing it manually. This is pretty realistic, agree? That means
each year, you have an average of
0.5% / 12 x 4 = 0.167%
of your fund floating in a money market. That means the other 99.833%
is still in the large cap fund! So after 72 years, you will have
99.833 x 1828 + 0.167 x 14 = $182,497.
Over 72 years, that's not much of a difference. And any disadvantage
would be offset by the ability to reinvest the pooled dividends into an
undervalued fund instead of being automatically reinvested.
> When the money's out iy isn't working for you.
The money is not "out". It's temporarily in a money market. "Out" means
under your mattress. In the grand scheme of things, it's an
insignificant amount and an duration.
Do you have a checking account? Is it earning as much as your stock
funds? Do you have any money floating there? Remember, every dollar you
have floating in your checking account is costing you $1814 over 72
years. =)
"Bucky" <> wrote
> What if you manually reinvest? Typical large cap funds yield about 2%
> annually. So each quarter's distribution is 0.5%. Let's say you leave
> the quarterly dividend in a money market for a month before
> re-investing it manually. This is pretty realistic, agree?
No. You are ignoring capital gains distributions.
> Over 72 years, that's not much of a difference. And any disadvantage
> would be offset by the ability to reinvest the pooled dividends into an
> undervalued fund instead of being automatically reinvested.
What is your formula for finding 'undervalued funds'?
> The money is not "out". It's temporarily in a money market. "Out" means
> under your mattress.
No, it means out of the stock market.
> Do you have a checking account? Is it earning as much as your stock
> funds? Do you have any money floating there? Remember, every dollar you
> have floating in your checking account is costing you $1814 over 72
> years. =)
We're talking about money already invested and the best way to manage it.
Ed wrote:
> You are ignoring capital gains distributions.
No, I used the Vanguard 500 Index Fund as a sample (after all, it is
one of the most popular funds in the world). It had less than 2% total
distributions in 2004 (it did not have any capital gains
distributions).
Even if you used other higher distribution yield funds, let's say 4%
annually. That means 1% floating in money market on average, which
means 99% still in the stock fund.
> What is your formula for finding 'undervalued funds'?
By that, I mean putting the distributions into funds that are not about
to burst their bubble. During the late 90s, that meant avoiding high
tech funds. Today it means avoiding energy and real estate funds.
> No, [out] means out of the stock market.
You said previously, "When the money's out it isn't working for you." I
guess we disagree on what "working for you" means. If an investment is
earning 3%, how is that not working for you? Money under the mattress
is not working for you.
In your previous example, you showed that large cap would grow 1828x
over 72 years, small cap would grow 5520x. By your rationale, having
money in large caps stocks would be considered "not working for you",
so you should have 100% of your investments in small cap funds.
> We're talking about money already invested and the best way to manage it.
I'm looking at the entire picture. A typical portfolio could be
75/15/10 stocks/bonds/cash. (Even if you don't believe in holding bonds
or cash, we're talking about the typical investor). You could
compensate for the 1% floating in money markets by making your
portfolio 76/15/9. There is no performance disadvantage when you look
at the entire picture.
I'm going to re-iterate my conclusion: There's nothing wrong with
automatic re-investing. However, there's nothing wrong with manual
re-investing either. It comes down to personal preference. I prefer
flexibility and to be hands-on.
Bucky wrote:
> Even if you used other higher distribution yield funds, let's say 4%
> annually. That means 1% floating in money market on average, which
> means 99% still in the stock fund.
Another number to further illustrate that the performance disadvantage
is insignificant:
Annualized return from 1925 to 1997:
100% stocks = 10.9955%
99% stocks + 1% t-bill = 10.9801%
difference = 0.0154%
Typical fund expense ratios range from 0.15% to 1.50%, which means
expense ratios are 10 to 100 times more significant than whether you
auto-reinvest.
"Bucky" <> wrote
> No, I used the Vanguard 500 Index Fund as a sample (after all, it is
> one of the most popular funds in the world). It had less than 2% total
> distributions in 2004 (it did not have any capital gains
> distributions).
The sad thing is it also hasn't had much in the way of capital gains over
the last few years.
> Even if you used other higher distribution yield funds, let's say 4%
> annually. That means 1% floating in money market on average, which
> means 99% still in the stock fund.
Then why bother? If it's more important to have 99% invested then why not
the other 1%?
>> What is your formula for finding 'undervalued funds'?
> By that, I mean putting the distributions into funds that are not about
> to burst their bubble. During the late 90s, that meant avoiding high
> tech funds. Today it means avoiding energy and real estate funds.
Ok, then why would you put the distribution from a fund as diversified as
VFINX into a money market?
> You said previously, "When the money's out it isn't working for you." I
> guess we disagree on what "working for you" means. If an investment is
> earning 3%, how is that not working for you?
In order to get the 2.98% that Vanguard Prime MM offers the money would have
to be in there for 1 year. It wasn't that long ago that you were only
getting 1/3 of this generous yield.
> Money under the mattress
> is not working for you.
It is in a bear market but a money market fund would be better.
> In your previous example, you showed that large cap would grow 1828x
> over 72 years, small cap would grow 5520x. By your rationale, having
> money in large caps stocks would be considered "not working for you",
> so you should have 100% of your investments in small cap funds.
Short term risk.
>> We're talking about money already invested and the best way to manage it.
>
> I'm looking at the entire picture. A typical portfolio could be
> 75/15/10 stocks/bonds/cash. (Even if you don't believe in holding bonds
> or cash, we're talking about the typical investor). You could
> compensate for the 1% floating in money markets by making your
> portfolio 76/15/9. There is no performance disadvantage when you look
> at the entire picture.
So why bother?
> I'm going to re-iterate my conclusion: There's nothing wrong with
> automatic re-investing. However, there's nothing wrong with manual
> re-investing either. It comes down to personal preference. I prefer
> flexibility and to be hands-on.
Me too, but I do both.
Ed wrote:
> If it's more important to have 99% invested then why not
> the other 1%?
The other 1% will be invested, just not necessarily in the same fund it
came from.
> Ok, then why would you put the distribution from a fund as diversified as
> VFINX into a money market?
1) For the last time, I'm not leaving it in the money market. The only
reason it's in the money market is so that I can reinvest the dividends
in whatever fund I wish, rather than back to their original fund.
2) VFINX/SP500/large caps can get overheated too. There have been
periods throughout history where large caps have outperformed, and
small caps were out of favor. Also, I read that during the boom around
2000, tech stocks represented about half of the SP500's value due to
its market cap weighting.
> In order to get the 2.98% that Vanguard Prime MM offers the money would have
> to be in there for 1 year.
Forget the prime MM. I'm not leaving my money there when I can get
3.25% FDIC insured savings account from Emigrant Direct.
>> Money under the mattress is not working for you.
> It is in a bear market but a money market fund would be better.
Previously you said that money was only working for you if it was in
stocks. Now you're saying that it's not working for you if the stocks
lose value. This seems rather contradictory, but it seems that you are
indicating that having money in a money market can still be working for
you. Which is why it's okay to have distributions there for the
short-term, it's not a waste.
Whatever.
If money is in a money market, I could see advantages to buying at a
low point (relative low).
In the scheme of 30 years, if the market trends upwards, the entry
point should not matter
in a sideways market for 30 years, this entry point could help returns
I automatically reinvest and "forget about it"... of course I have not
cashed any of this out yet.
I avoid reinvests like the plague for positions where you have to
figure a cost basis. Can tolerate reinvests for $market or retirement
funds, although I'd think most folks would have better uses for it,
like the very important rebalancing or reallocating of portfolios.
Also it's not so bad to let it sweep into $market funds for a while
since it may not really be a disinvestment out of stocks but "slop
cash" that your fund had disinvested long ago in order to payout.
I can hardly believe that folks merrily reinvest and seem content with
accounting issues. Even after years of avoiding reinvest, I am cursed
with it. You can NOT depend on whoever sold you the fund to account
for the cost properly; they even warn you about that. Some don't even
try, and others can't account for unusual circumstances and just assign
a zero cost basis for incremental adjustments which is the worst case
that you won't even notice without vigilance.
I was recently wading thru a case which involved xfering funds to a new
broker, then that broker changing their accounting/display software.
All kinds of incremental transactions flying around before and after
these changes that weren't understood by the next phase, creating a few
additional shares with no price (thus assigned zero). Have to look up
price histories with endless ambiguities (div date or payout date?
prices include or exclude div?) and add up. Who has time for that
nonsense, or the more usual effort of digging up ancient paper
transactions for what's not retrievable.
Stupid reinvest options get turned back on all the time, such as when
opening or transferring to a new fund or when transferring it to a new
brokerage. You have to be vigilant in querying this (sometimes hard)
and turning it back off and cleaning up the messy cost basis. One
major brokerage is nice about recognizing you want to open funds
without reinvest, but it's online capability to type in corrected cost
basis info seems broken.
I have no idea who you are responding to so I didn't read your post in its
entirety..
You should make it clear by leaving a hint. Don't completely delete the post
you are responding to.
I did skim your post though and it made no sense to me.
Ed wrote:
> I have no idea who you are responding to so I didn't read your post in its
> entirety..
I was responding to the initial simple query which I thought was summed
up by the still visable subject line. And with a focus on the tricky
"accounting issue" reply, which came early, but I was wary about
quoting because the author seemed to recant part of it later...
> You should make it clear by leaving a hint. Don't completely delete the post
> you are responding to.
Sometimes I imagine most readers have migrated to the google web
environment for newsgroups. Has a nice graphic pointers to the (still
visable) post you refer to. Discourages redundancies by replacing
lengthy quotes by a sort of polite version of <more redundant drivel>,
and by making it harder to include any quotes at all without double
clicking special options. Normally works well, but in this case the
thread was so long the graphics broke down.
> I did skim your post though and it made no sense to me.
Too rambling? Darn, I was hoping it'd inspire someone to etch it into
a giant stainless steel monolith somewhere. How about: Reinvest? NOT!
"dumbstruck" <> wrote
> Too rambling? Darn, I was hoping it'd inspire someone to etch it into
> a giant stainless steel monolith somewhere. How about: Reinvest? NOT!
I always reinvest, it's the way to go. This is why they make chocolate and
vanilla.