Thinking you are sitting pretty with your equity investment totals?

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Those thinking of moving some equity in your portfolio to cash would not be wrong, with the option of re-investment later. . My 401K has been in zero equities since last August, waiting for about 3000 on the SP500. Don't fall for the stocks always go up or always return 8% , including about 2-3% dividends, giving about 6% price return, from any point in time. your time is limited, you do not have income to make up for shortfalls, unless you have a federal government pension. . .

The graph below is the simplest valuation metric of equity valuation to sales of the S&P 500, best would be enterprise value to sales but sometime later. With a 30% drop from here, at 6% price return, it takes 6 years to get back to the same price. . So selling high at these levels, may save you 6 years of retirement savings gains. .

However, I am just some rando fictishus poster who has ever texted with one of the nice people on this board, so make your decision and own it. . .

trading guy

[CoachKandSportsguy]

and be sure to have your wealth protected well enough to pass on to your offspring, your children and grand children as they will need it.

If you don't have wills and trusts, your wealth may not get to your children and grandchildren who need it. My aunt and uncle had a friendly next door scammer get some of their wealth in the 2000's

[Stu from NYC]

We all have different risk tolerances.

Historically when there is a correction the market comes back strong and continues on a long term 8-10% path of price appreciation.

Also understand why you would have taken your 401 equities and put them in cash but you did lose a lot of appreciation by doing that.

Not saying you are wrong but I tend to be somewhat more aggressive than most and have faith in our economy over the long run. Having said this over the past few years more of my mutual fund investments have gone to more conservative equity funds like value and dividend yield funds.

[MrFlorida]

Wall Street Roulette.

[Babubhat]

Doesn’t matter until you need to cash in. Most leaving it to kids anyway. Get your step up in basis and screw tax man

[valuemkt]

Zero money in equities since August ? Yea you;re a financial genius . NOT

[CoachKandSportsguy]

We all have different risk tolerances.

Also understand why you would have taken your 401 equities and put them in cash but you did lose a lot of appreciation by doing that.

I tend to have faith in our economy over the long run.

The comment is not a reflection of the economy, this is a valuation issue. The economy will still run between 1-3% long term. My comment is that the valuation is very, very extended relative to the economy. kind of like a 350K house going for 700K 12 months later. . . when nothing changed other than very low interest rates and high equity prices to assume a great retirement forever. . its called recency bias, versus the historical view which i displayed in the graphs. . that is the point, the recent market is not historically normal, but truly abnormal.

When I sold, the SPX was 4520, today its 4431, not sure how you can state that I have lost a lot of appreciation.

I was out of the stock market, 100% in cash in June 2007 prior to the housing market crash . . . the key is to avoid big market drawdowns, which has a potential to happen right now


But also relate the current valuation to the historical market highs, and realize that the Federal Reserve has had a lot to do with the stock market returns because of the deflationary effects of technology. . . ie, they didn't have to worry about consumption inflation, which is starting to move up and then flatten, depending upon the price of energy, and minimum wage. . .

The ultra best scenario is to have the Dec year end equity prices as low as possible for minimum RMDs but that goes against performance marketing of investment management.
The worst scenario is to have the market at yearly highs in Dec and then be down when you decide to take the RMD. . just something else to think about when to take the RMDs

[Babubhat]

Past performance in no guarantee of future returns. Life has many risks

[rsmurano]

Have you heard the saying: “pigs get slaughtered” in relation to the stock market?
Nobody can time the market! Yes the market will eventually climb over time, and yes, there will be volatility.
Normally I have always stayed in the market thru the last 3 big downturns but starting this year, my gut is telling me to get out which is what I did. Still have a 1/4 of my portfolio still in the market mainly because of tax consequences of selling.
If I miss out on gains this year, I can live with that. But, if the market has a correction, when I jump back in (can’t time the market), I’ll be way ahead

[toeser]

By almost any measure, the overall market is seriously overpriced. However, this does not feel like a market top to me. It's not crazy enough. I think the market may have another 15-25% in it over the next couple of years. However, when this market does top, I think it will be a major-major top that won't be breached again for a very long time.

When the market topped in the late 1960's it did not progress to new higher levels for a decade. I think we will be looking at that again. There are consequences for the Fed and Congress mismanaging stuff this badly.

[Travelhunter123]

Those thinking of moving some equity in your portfolio to cash would not be wrong, with the option of re-investment later. . My 401K has been in zero equities since last August, waiting for about 3000 on the SP500. Don't fall for the stocks always go up or always return 8% , including about 2-3% dividends, giving about 6% price return, from any point in time. your time is limited, you do not have income to make up for shortfalls, unless you have a federal government pension. . .

The graph below is the simplest valuation metric of equity valuation to sales of the S&P 500, best would be enterprise value to sales but sometime later. With a 30% drop from here, at 6% price return, it takes 6 years to get back to the same price. . So selling high at these levels, may save you 6 years of retirement savings gains. .

However, I am just some rando fictishus poster who has ever texted with one of the nice people on this board, so make your decision and own it. . .

trading guy

Timing the markets is difficult at best. If you are “lucky enough” to sell at the height of the market, when do you buy back in? There is a scenario where you sell low and buy high
If you are investing your funds at 1% waiting for the market to bottom; you are losing money to inflation

[FredJacobs]

I always recommend not making your paper losses into real losses. The market always comes back. If you couldn't predict the downtrend then you can't predict when to reinvest in the uptrend. Market timers generally lose. Same thing if you react on a bad market day. "Oh, the market lost 500 points today. I'm going to move everything into a money market." Next day, the market goes up 400 points, the day after, another 200 points and continues up. And, you can't get back in for 30 days or you will have a "wash sale." My best advice - stop being a day-to-day money manager. If you are in mutual or index funds, let the professionals handle your investments.

[FredJacobs]

My will reads, "Being of sound mind and body, I spent it all!"

[Boffin]

Those thinking of moving some equity in your portfolio to cash would not be wrong, with the option of re-investment later. . My 401K has been in zero equities since last August, waiting for about 3000 on the SP500. Don't fall for the stocks always go up or always return 8% , including about 2-3% dividends, giving about 6% price return, from any point in time. your time is limited, you do not have income to make up for shortfalls, unless you have a federal government pension. . .

The graph below is the simplest valuation metric of equity valuation to sales of the S&P 500, best would be enterprise value to sales but sometime later. With a 30% drop from here, at 6% price return, it takes 6 years to get back to the same price. . So selling high at these levels, may save you 6 years of retirement savings gains. .

However, I am just some rando fictishus poster who has ever texted with one of the nice people on this board, so make your decision and own it. . .

trading guy

The average length of a bear market is 289 days, or about 9.6 months. That’s significantly shorter than the average length of a bull market, which is 991 days or 2.7 years.

92376

[Waltdisney4life]

Peter Lynch said more money is lost trying not to lose money!!

[browndw1]

My goal for my traditional IRA is to keep at least 2 years worth of RMD in cash the remainder is invested in conservative mutual funds - emphasis on value and dividends. I have done this by reverse dollar cost averaging. In other words within my iRA I convert enough from my equity mutual funds to cash to keep the 2 year RMD balance in cash.. I withdraw my RMD in January. In reality this really gives me at least 3 years to weather a bear market even if I stop converting during the down period. Just another way to approach this potential problem.

[Stu from NYC]

The comment is not a reflection of the economy, this is a valuation issue. The economy will still run between 1-3% long term. My comment is that the valuation is very, very extended relative to the economy. kind of like a 350K house going for 700K 12 months later. . . when nothing changed other than very low interest rates and high equity prices to assume a great retirement forever. . its called recency bias, versus the historical view which i displayed in the graphs. . that is the point, the recent market is not historically normal, but truly abnormal.

When I sold, the SPX was 4520, today its 4431, not sure how you can state that I have lost a lot of appreciation.

I was out of the stock market, 100% in cash in June 2007 prior to the housing market crash . . . the key is to avoid big market drawdowns, which has a potential to happen right now


But also relate the current valuation to the historical market highs, and realize that the Federal Reserve has had a lot to do with the stock market returns because of the deflationary effects of technology. . . ie, they didn't have to worry about consumption inflation, which is starting to move up and then flatten, depending upon the price of energy, and minimum wage. . .

The ultra best scenario is to have the Dec year end equity prices as low as possible for minimum RMDs but that goes against performance marketing of investment management.
The worst scenario is to have the market at yearly highs in Dec and then be down when you decide to take the RMD. . just something else to think about when to take the RMDs

I can only speak for myself and my investing habits.

To me it is impossible to time the market and going in and out is a great way to lose in the long run. I would rather stick with my collection of mutual funds and monitor their performance.

When not happy with performance make a change.

BTW my portfolio was up over the last half of 2021 so again speaking for myself would have lost some appreciation by getting out. Not to mention not easy to judge when to go back in.

Too many people buy high and sell low. As a former President has said better to stay the course.

[irishwonone]

Peter Lynch said more money is lost trying not to lose money!!
Absolutely correct!

[skyking]

I'm heavily invested and my net worth is 25% higher than when I retired 10 years ago.

Stick to sports, coach.

[Cliff Fr]

I'm wondering how the national debt, the interest payments on that debt, and the debts percentage of the GDP factors into the stock market?

[MrFlorida]

Sticking it under the mattress is not an option.

[Tbrazie]

The comment is not a reflection of the economy, this is a valuation issue. The economy will still run between 1-3% long term. My comment is that the valuation is very, very extended relative to the economy. kind of like a 350K house going for 700K 12 months later. . . when nothing changed other than very low interest rates and high equity prices to assume a great retirement forever. . its called recency bias, versus the historical view which i displayed in the graphs. . that is the point, the recent market is not historically normal, but truly abnormal.

When I sold, the SPX was 4520, today its 4431, not sure how you can state that I have lost a lot of appreciation.

I was out of the stock market, 100% in cash in June 2007 prior to the housing market crash . . . the key is to avoid big market drawdowns, which has a potential to happen right now


But also relate the current valuation to the historical market highs, and realize that the Federal Reserve has had a lot to do with the stock market returns because of the deflationary effects of technology. . . ie, they didn't have to worry about consumption inflation, which is starting to move up and then flatten, depending upon the price of energy, and minimum wage. . .

The ultra best scenario is to have the Dec year end equity prices as low as possible for minimum RMDs but that goes against performance marketing of investment management.
The worst scenario is to have the market at yearly highs in Dec and then be down when you decide to take the RMD. . just something else to think about when to take the RMDs

The broad market is down. This is way overvalued. I have run several trust funds and agree that people should move some into cash and gold. Not sure of the negative response as you are trying to help give people a warning. Their's to take or not.

[dewilson58]

I'm heavily invested and my net worth is 25% higher than when I retired 10 years ago. Stick to sports, coach.

:what:

[manaboutown]

I'm heavily invested and my net worth is 25% higher than when I retired 10 years ago.

Stick to sports, coach.

Is 25% a typo?

[dewilson58]

Is 25% a typo?

My first thought as well, but maybe..............up 2.5% per year after withdrawing living expenses.


:shrug:

[manaboutown]

My first thought as well, but maybe..............up 2.5% per year after withdrawing living expenses.


:shrug:

The S&P500 has more than tripled, from a little over 1,300 to more than 4,400 today I believe, and housing prices are up at least 60% nationwide over the last ten years. All-Transactions House Price Index for the United States (USSTHPI) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USSTHPI)

[Stu from NYC]

The S&P500 has more than tripled, from a little over 1,300 to more than 4,400 today I believe, and housing prices are up at least 60% nationwide over the last ten years. All-Transactions House Price Index for the United States (USSTHPI) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USSTHPI)

Without knowing what was drawn out no way of knowing how well or poorly someone has done.

[manaboutown]

Without knowing what was drawn out no way of knowing how well or poorly someone has done.

True that!

People's circumstances differ.

[jimjamuser]

Timing the markets is difficult at best. If you are “lucky enough” to sell at the height of the market, when do you buy back in? There is a scenario where you sell low and buy high
If you are investing your funds at 1% waiting for the market to bottom; you are losing money to inflation
One easy way to time the market in a 2 or 4th year election year that works about 80% of the time is to sell stocks in April and use the cash to buy back in about October - because there is a tendency for the market to go up after a national election (no matter who wins). The idea is that the market likes stability and AFTER an election, there are fewer unknowns. Then hold on to those stocks because Dec with Xmas and later January tend to be UP months.
........Some sort of war somewhere in the world could cause this year to have BIG market fluctuations and overpower that "buy after election" strategy.

[dewilson58]

One easy way to time the market in a 2 or 4th year election year that works about 80% of the time is to sell stocks in April and use the cash to buy back in about October - because there is a tendency for the market to go up after a national election (no matter who wins). The idea is that the market likes stability and AFTER an election, there are fewer unknowns. Then hold on to those stocks because Dec with Xmas and later January tend to be UP months. .

Please provide supporting data since you are presenting this as fact. :ohdear:

Here are some facts:

In 2016, Charles Schwab analyzed market data going back to 1950 and found that, in general, the third year of the presidency overlapped with the strongest market gains. The S&P 500, a fairly broad index of stocks, exhibited the following average returns in each year of the presidential cycle:

Year after the election: +6.5%
Second-year: +7.0%
Third-year: +16.4%
Fourth-year: +6.6%

Overall, the predictive power of the presidential election cycle theory has been mixed. While average market returns in years one and two have been slightly sluggish overall, the direction of stock prices hasn’t been consistent from one cycle to the next. The bullish trend in year three has proven more reliable, with average gains far exceeding those of other years. What’s more, roughly 90% of all cycles since 1950 experienced a market gain in the year after the midterm elections.

[Babubhat]

If you can’t sleep with your portfolio change it. Stop worrying, no guarantee the sun comes up tomorrow.

[sccaracer46]

For those who have cash or those that have taken money out of the market and don't know what to do, I recommend the following if you would be satisfied with annual dividends of 10.5-12% paid monthly! I discovered QYLD ETF that is made up of the Nasdaq 100 companies which contain companies like Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, Google, Amazon, etc. This is a fund that uses a covered call strategy where they sell calls each month and the dividends are issued based on the income form the sale of the calls. This fund has been producing these returns since it was established in 2013. The fund net asset value will reflect the same valuation as a regular Nasdaq 100 fund. This is good vehicle to use if you are looking for cash flow to supplement your other retirement sources.

[Stu from NYC]

For those who have cash or those that have taken money out of the market and don't know what to do, I recommend the following if you would be satisfied with annual dividends of 10.5-12% paid monthly! I discovered QYLD ETF that is made up of the Nasdaq 100 companies which contain companies like Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, Google, Amazon, etc. This is a fund that uses a covered call strategy where they sell calls each month and the dividends are issued based on the income form the sale of the calls. This fund has been producing these returns since it was established in 2013. The fund net asset value will reflect the same valuation as a regular Nasdaq 100 fund. This is good vehicle to use if you are looking for cash flow to supplement your other retirement sources.

Just a bit risky?

[Luggage]

Us gov I bonds guarantee inflation plus.

[Travelhunter123]

For those who have cash or those that have taken money out of the market and don't know what to do, I recommend the following if you would be satisfied with annual dividends of 10.5-12% paid monthly! I discovered QYLD ETF that is made up of the Nasdaq 100 companies which contain companies like Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, Google, Amazon, etc. This is a fund that uses a covered call strategy where they sell calls each month and the dividends are issued based on the income form the sale of the calls. This fund has been producing these returns since it was established in 2013. The fund net asset value will reflect the same valuation as a regular Nasdaq 100 fund. This is good vehicle to use if you are looking for cash flow to supplement your other retirement sources.
Currently it’s paying a 10% dividend. However for the past 12 months the price per share is down almost 8%
On Jan 24, the price per share For the past 12 months was down almost 20%
You might consider a utility, potential for growth, with a 4% yield less risk

[dewilson58]

You might consider a utility, potential for growth, with a 4% yield less risk
:bigbow:
Mostly electric utilities.

[nn0wheremann]

So much for statistics!

[nn0wheremann]

Perhaps the measure of wealth, Federal Reserve distributional accounts, is wrong. One of the most expensive purchases many people make is education and training. My bachelor’s degree from the University of Missouri cost about $10,000 over four years. My MBA from Southern Illinois cost a similar amount 15 years later. My education is worth, by FASB rules, about $20,000. My Millenial daughters each have educations that cost $80,000. By Financial Accounting Standards Board rules, right out of college their assets were four times that of their Boomer father.

So much for statistics!

[dewilson58]

FASB rules!

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is an independent nonprofit organization responsible for establishing accounting and financial reporting standards for companies and nonprofit organizations in the United States.

Didn't know they had reg's for personal financial comparisons.

:ohdear:

[Kaelo Abu]

This reminds me of a golfing buddy who would take several minutes to look at every angle of an upcoming putt, only to miss nearly every time due to poor technique.

[Kaelo Abu]

"Didn't know they [the FASB] had reg's for personal financial comparisons."

It doesn't!! But considering all the other stuff being thrown around in this thread, why be concerned about that?? My head is about to explode!! And to think all this started with the proposition that it's a worthy goal to seek a zero percent (0%) ROI (return on investment)!

[dewilson58]

"why be concerned about that??

I iz not.

Just didn't understand why someone would reference FASB when FASB is irrelevant according to my understanding of FASB.

Happy exploding.

:ho:

[skyking]

My first thought as well, but maybe..............up 2.5% per year after withdrawing living expenses.


:shrug:

Yes. We have spent over two million dollars during that time.

[skyking]

Is 25% a typo?

????? I said my net worth is up 25%, not my investments (there is a difference).

[dewilson58]

Yes. We have spent over two million dollars during that time.

:pepper2::pepper2:

[manaboutown]

Inflation today from what I read is currently running the highest in about 40 years. Pretty scary to me!

My curiosity caused me to look back over the last ten years at how much inflation we have actually experienced. This is what I found. I thought it had been a little lower.

"Core inflation averaged 2.11% per year between 2012 and 2022 (vs all-CPI inflation of 1.96%), for an inflation total of 20.67%. When using the core inflation measurement, $1 in 2012 is equivalent in buying power to $1.21 in 2022, a difference of $0.21."

$1 in 2012 → 2022 | Inflation Calculator (https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2012?amount=1)

[jimjamuser]

Please provide supporting data since you are presenting this as fact. :ohdear:

Here are some facts:

In 2016, Charles Schwab analyzed market data going back to 1950 and found that, in general, the third year of the presidency overlapped with the strongest market gains. The S&P 500, a fairly broad index of stocks, exhibited the following average returns in each year of the presidential cycle:

Year after the election: +6.5%
Second-year: +7.0%
Third-year: +16.4%
Fourth-year: +6.6%

Overall, the predictive power of the presidential election cycle theory has been mixed. While average market returns in years one and two have been slightly sluggish overall, the direction of stock prices hasn’t been consistent from one cycle to the next. The bullish trend in year three has proven more reliable, with average gains far exceeding those of other years. What’s more, roughly 90% of all cycles since 1950 experienced a market gain in the year after the midterm elections.
OK, I will start with.....there are NO ABSOLUTE facts about anything. The closest is mathematics and even that subject changes and has gray areas. So, if there are no facts then a link would be only as good as the expert/opinion of the author of the link. So, basically, I don't memorize links or EVER even TRY to look one up to prove something that I say. Anyway, EVEN if I did take the time to prove it, then at least 1/2 of the posters would poo-poo it and say "no-way that does NOT prove anything because my (meaning their) mind is totally hardened on the subject....
........Nevertheless, I will say that what I posted was to the BEST of my knowledge and memory. It is MORE than just my opinion yet less than a mathematical truth or even a link (that was 100% factual, which would be impossible). 15 years ago I began investing. I have made over 100 purchases and sales of ETFs and individual stocks, probably more. That is probably about average for a TV Lander. I get 90% of ALL of my stock info from the 2 daily Fast $ shows. About 7 years ago I heard the election year theory of market value timing (and note that it is stronger during the 4-year cycle of a Presidential election. I then heard it repeated about 5 years ago, which, to me, was a confirming 2nd time. Incidentally,
there is another interesting market timing and more long-term and EVEN likely to be more controversial to TV Landers - namely, that the stock market, normally, has increased MORE during one party's time in office vs the other. And guess which is which?

[jimjamuser]

OK, I will start with.....there are NO ABSOLUTE facts about anything. The closest is mathematics and even that subject changes and has gray areas. So, if there are no facts then a link would be only as good as the expert/opinion of the author of the link. So, basically, I don't memorize links or EVER even TRY to look one up to prove something that I say. Anyway, EVEN if I did take the time to prove it, then at least 1/2 of the posters would poo-poo it and say "no-way that does NOT prove anything because my (meaning their) mind is totally hardened on the subject....
........Nevertheless, I will say that what I posted was to the BEST of my knowledge and memory. It is MORE than just my opinion yet less than a mathematical truth or even a link (that was 100% factual, which would be impossible). 15 years ago I began investing. I have made over 100 purchases and sales of ETFs and individual stocks, probably more. That is probably about average for a TV Lander. I get 90% of ALL of my stock info from the 2 daily Fast $ shows. About 7 years ago I heard the election year theory of market value timing (and note that it is stronger during the 4-year cycle of a Presidential election. I then heard it repeated about 5 years ago, which, to me, was a confirming 2nd time. Incidentally,
there is another interesting market timing and more long-term and EVEN likely to be more controversial to TV Landers - namely, that the stock market, normally, has increased MORE during one party's time in office vs the other. And guess which is which?
.......So, to re-cap the election-year timing method, I had it stated and confirmed on Fast $ and I also stated MY opinion for WHY it made sense to ME - that is that both big and small investors prefer the MORE stabilized knowledge that they have after a 4th year Presidential Election when they know who won! So, this IS WAY more than just MY opinion!
........And the last sentence written by the poster that responded to my post said something to the effect that 90% of the time the year after the midterm Election that the market goes up. Which actually proves my point except that I added that the effect is stronger in the year AFTER a Presidential Election. So, typically after the election in early Nov. the market goes up through Xmas, JAN, Feb, and about March then levels off for the summer and then it likely moves up in anticipation of Xmas sales for that non-election year. So, it is likely that the WHOLE year AFTER a Presidential Election that the market it up. But, I don't depend on that. I take my ELECTION YEAR profits in about March and then I re-evaluate around October depending on Xmas retail sales forecasts. .......sorry that this was so long!

[jimjamuser]

Please provide supporting data since you are presenting this as fact. :ohdear:

Here are some facts:

In 2016, Charles Schwab analyzed market data going back to 1950 and found that, in general, the third year of the presidency overlapped with the strongest market gains. The S&P 500, a fairly broad index of stocks, exhibited the following average returns in each year of the presidential cycle:

Year after the election: +6.5%
Second-year: +7.0%
Third-year: +16.4%
Fourth-year: +6.6%

Overall, the predictive power of the presidential election cycle theory has been mixed. While average market returns in years one and two have been slightly sluggish overall, the direction of stock prices hasn’t been consistent from one cycle to the next. The bullish trend in year three has proven more reliable, with average gains far exceeding those of other years. What’s more, roughly 90% of all cycles since 1950 experienced a market gain in the year after the midterm elections.
OK, I put that 3rd-year factual statistics into my slow, small, mind-computer. And I came up with an explanation that satisfied myself. It actually parallels my statements about both BIG and small investors preferring government STABILITY. The more the better for the market. BIG investors have a conservative bent. They want their money to make them more money, BUT at the lowest possible risk. The 3rd year of ANY Presidents term is the year AFTER the midterms. So, what usually (not always) happens is that the party that is opposite to the President takes over that year. This makes the 3 rd year usually (?) the most stable. Things can get done, but RADICAL changes are less likely to happen with a President of one persuasion and a Congress of the other persuasion. So stability makes the stock market go up in that 3rd-year situation. I can buy that!

[dewilson58]

I can buy that!

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
Request was for facts supporting your statement.
Response was theory.

Maybe this will help:

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something

:ho:

[jimjamuser]

Perhaps the measure of wealth, Federal Reserve distributional accounts, is wrong. One of the most expensive purchases many people make is education and training. My bachelor’s degree from the University of Missouri cost about $10,000 over four years. My MBA from Southern Illinois cost a similar amount 15 years later. My education is worth, by FASB rules, about $20,000. My Millenial daughters each have educations that cost $80,000. By Financial Accounting Standards Board rules, right out of college their assets were four times that of their Boomer father.

So much for statistics!
Possibly, but you need to convert their education costs downward due to constant dollars. or yours upward to make a realistic comparison. The value of money changes over time.

[jimjamuser]

This reminds me of a golfing buddy who would take several minutes to look at every angle of an upcoming putt, only to miss nearly every time due to poor technique.
A good buddy to make bets with!