Possible Future Scenarios-

[NigelW]

There are things that I believe can be learnt from the past.

Dealing with your specific questions Bill:

1) An aging population does raise challenges. Everyone seems to be aware of these challenges. Hence I believe we will move to address these challenges - importing young people to care & pay for the welfare of the old. Wealth will change hands in a generally orderly fashion & life will go on.
Cheers,

Aceyducey

Maybe there's an analogy with the Y2k Millenium Bug thingy.

by around 1997 everybody figured out it was a problem - and a fairly costly one to solve due to the sheer scale of review work involved.

Some people thought the best thing was to stock up on tinned food and shotguns and dig yourself into a bunker in woods as the year 2000 ticked over...others just spent the time, energy and money to fix the problem beforehand and went out and partied...

As it turned out there were no massive disasters...other than a complete bonanza for a lot of code monkeys

I think the answers to funding our ageing and demanding population will be worked out - maybe govts will up super contributions, reduce taxes on super further, institute an additional tax, sell off Tassie in 20 years time to GlaxoSmithKlinePfizerMicrosoftGEC... who knows??? But I think as a nation that we'll get it sorted...

My 2.4c worth (i.e. 2 cents plus GST plus the look after the old codgers tax )

N.

 

[Steve Navra]

1/ Does anyone see any problems created by having a large(and growing)proportion of the population moving into "retirement"? Something that we have not experienced in the past. With respect as to how this will affect investment markets.

Investment markets will (In the absence of Govt interference) always be governed by supply and demand. The ageing population ratio will obviously place extreme stress on the existing investment paradigm, as the ever increasing expense of supporting an older and retired group becomes greater. (Just imagine the cost of free medical benefits for all the >74 year old people, doubling in number every 5 to 10 years!!)
As the ratio of younger working people decreases, so the cost blowout will accelerate until “something has to give.”
The answer to this problem is of course that a new moral code of social acceptance will by necessity eventuate. Necessary changes to the social structure will be implemented to bring market conditions (supply / demand) back into balance and then investment markets will once again perform in the usual fashion.

2a/ Can cap growth in the average residential property continue to grow at 8% pa while inflation stays low?

No, it cannot. Aceyducey perhaps answered this best by reflecting that property only need grow in excess of inflation. I will expand further as follows:
You might notice that property has performed at a certain level in excess of inflation over a long time period. So if the average inflation over time has been 5% and property has averaged 7% then you might say the expectation is property performance at inflation + 2%. (Do not get confused with the 8% property average compared to current inflation of approximately 3% . . . inflation hasn’t always been this low!)
The reasons why property has exceeded inflation are varied . . . to name a few such as population growth (including immigration) creating demand; and influx of population into certain areas. (At the expense of population decreases in rural /country and other areas)

2b/ Will yields continue to fall to say 2% in 10 years and then 1% in 20 years??

See the answer to 3/ below

3/ If yields rise in the next 10 years will this be due to higher inflation, lower cap growth or a combination of both?? Perhaps by some other mechanism??

In absolute terms, yields do NOT rise or fall!!!
The yield after all is just a measure or the reflected percentage balance of the result of other factors:

Yield = return / value.
Regarding property then, the absolute yield (What the tenants can afford to pay) is very stable and is closely linked to affordability. (Wage growth, based on average weekly ordinary times earnings.) This amount generally increases at the rate of inflation.
This stable return is presented as a yield percentage when divided by the value.
Value on the other hand fluctuates considerably when compared to inflation. (Usually because of factors such as high / low interest rates; tax benefits; supply or lack of housing and many other factors.)
I notice that everyone seems to have the view that yield percentages will continuously decline:
Percentage yields WILL decline ONLY at the same rate that property exceeds inflation in real terms.
This is something that is occurring, but at a VERY slow rate. Yes I appreciate that this seems very noticeable at the moment, but please appreciate that we have just experienced an enormous growth in property prices and that yields are just the result of stable returns / extreme prices at this time.

If yields rise / or fall in the future it will be as a result of “higher inflation, lower cap growth or a combination of both?? Perhaps by some other mechanism??” and many other factors that we might not yet have considered. Whatever the reasons, natural market forces will always eventually create their own natural balance.


On a lighter note:
I took an in depth look at Bill.L’s original post and converted the entire text into binary; and then inserted this into the NavTraDE ‘blackbox’ system. Now as you have been totally informed in this thread, the system ONLY takes account of what is currently occurring and makes no predictions. (past or future)

The resulting algorithmic calculations are strongly suggesting that Bill.L will definitely be investing copious amounts of dollars into the Navrainvest funds in the foreseeable future.

Regards,

Steve

 

[Bill.L]

Hi all,

My goodness, I step away from the thread for a few hours, and there is tons of good thoughts and issues already!

Where will I start?

Acey
"The issue I have with your comments Bill is that where you are concerned that others have too much hope for the future you fall into the trap of having too much fear about the past."

How is raising issues on the forum, "having too much fear about the past" ?
I actually have a lot of hope for the future, I just expect it to unfold a little differently to what most people suggest.

One of the things I find a little difficult to take is when an "expert"( as in professional information seller), uses numbers about the distant future flippantly. By asking some hard questions does not mean I am negative, nor does playing devils advocate in a discussion.
Would you have us all just sit back and thank every "expert" for sparing us their precious time and pearls of wisdom, while regaling in how much everyone has made following the system, and by how much we can all make by continueing exactly the same for the next 20 years??

The comparison to the Japanese situation, we are just going to disagree on. For whatever reasons, they got into the situation where assets became grossly overvalued relative to the yields. If our assets continue to grow at a rate much faster than inflation(and hence yields) we could find ourselves in a similar bubble.

Acey,
"Personally I'm not putting a lot of funds into property atm and really haven't done much more than renovate existing properties to maximise CG for the last 12 months. We've shifted our focus into other areas just as we shifted our investment focus into property when that market started moving."

We are so different in some views, but your above comment is EXACTLY the same as what we have been doing in the last 12 months.

Steve,
It's getting late and I think I agree with most of what you have written!! Well maybe not the last bit

Just on the investments though,
I can draw an analogy of the stockmarket( where I think most of the super money has been housed), to a giant bucket.
We have pouring into this bucket 2 taps. One tap is where all new investments come from, the other tap is the earnings of the companies.
This giant bucket also has leaks, small holes where dividends flow, other holes where the sales of existing shares go, still others where brokerage fees drain to. And of course all the IPO's are like someone dipping a cup in and removing the contents.
Luckily for us as the holes grow bigger so do the taps, but in the future the holes are going to increase rapidly(as the retirees live off their super), while one of the taps flow slows its rate of growth( the shift in the proportion of the workforce paying into super vs those in retirement).
Can that other tap(company earnings) increase quickly enough to cater for all the leaks??
Of course the whole analogy falls down because if the taps were both turned off today there is nothing in the bucket to leak out tomorrow.

Now its really late!
goodnight.

bye

 

[thefirstbruce]

One of my recurring themes in somersoft is borrowing concepts that are used in Shares and apply them to Property.

SC, that strikes a cord with me. I too am applying the TA paradigm to property more and more. When I said to an REA several months ago that I thought the property market was choppy, he said 'great description, can I use it?'

And I too am being cautious at the moment buying IPs.... Too much like falling knives.....

When I spoke with Simon Baker from realestate.com last w/e, he promised the company were developing TA tools to examine property sales data on their site. now that will be exciting, and do a lot to clarify true market value, something long clouded by REAs. don't you love an efficient market economy!!!!

 

[Sunfish]

Share market data is both timely and accurate. R/E data is always old and conflicting. Could this be a case of GIGO?

T

 

[see_change]

And I too am being cautious at the moment buying IPs.... Too much like falling knives.....

Yep TFB

and this one hasn't even hit the ground , let alone stopped quivering.

See Change

 

[Garry K]

Good post Bill.

My 20c worth

1/ Does anyone see any problems created by having a large(and growing)proportion of the population moving into "retirement"? Something that we have not experienced in the past. With respect as to how this will affect investment markets.

US guy Harry Dent proposes a (nother) stock market crash, when retirees need to start selling off their investments to fund their retirement. Has some logic to it, but I think it's more of a slower process that wouldn't impact the market too much. Perhaps offset by increasing compulsory super contributions.
Less people (ie retirees) paying tax though is an issue.I wonder if Allocated Pensions will retain their tax free status.
Baby boomers have recently been enthusiatic investors, not sure about the next generation.


2/ Can cap growth in the average residential property continue to grow at 8% pa while inflation stays low? Will yields continue to fall to say 2% in 10 years and then 1% in 20 years??

Looking at Melbourne median prices from 1984 to 2003, the increase averaged 8.8% pa. CPI averaged 4.95%.
So, i'd suggest this trend is likely continue ie property growth CPI + say 3%.
Rentals will catch up on current yields, but will take a year or three. We will always have these capital spikes, which initially decreases yield.

3/ If yields rise in the next 10 years will this be due to higher inflation, lower cap growth or a combination of both?? Perhaps by some other mechanism??

Both, plus investors leaving (not enetering) the market while yields stay low, and share yields stay at current high levels.
Eventually supply and demand drives rental up, but this will take a few years.

GarryK

 

[Peter Spann]

The Power of the Forum

I had some ideas at the beginning - life got in the way.

You all jumped in and said them all!

Good on you all.

Now, Bill, to address your original post…



<This is said with no malice or sarcasm – read it straight and you will understand – read it with any hint of emotion and it will be taken out of context>



I have not accused you, Bill of being negative. My accusation was that it is easy to criticise, harder to provide strategy and I’d still like to hear your strategy for dealing with the possible outcomes you have suggested. I am not sure how your previous strategy as originally posted addressed the scenarios you have suggested.

I am also happy with my expertise (and it would seem, so are the thousands of clients who have invested with me and my team), and it is those back handed swipes that lose you respect in my opinion, not any perceived negativity. I don’t mind being disagreed with – I just respect people who are prepared to put it on the line and say what they would do as an alternative.

I am inexperienced in the ways of forums and seem easily drawn into “flame wars” so I hope to refrain from that behaviour and retain some dignity in the future – I am not into slanging matches.



To answer your questions (originally posed to me, but now, due to the power of the forum given a much wider response which, I believe is far more educative).

Like others I do not believe we can predict the future beyond a reasonable guess.

I adjust my strategy based on that guess and continue to adapt as more information comes to light.

While the baby boomers are an issue they are the best funded retiree group in the history of the country and merely need to lower their lifestyle aspirations and they will be fine (if not – I agree it could be a problem).

I am more concerned by the massive debt and near collapse of the US economy only propped up by increased taxes and defense spending. Bush or Kelly have no answers and I can only see it getting worse. But if they plunge us into a world wide recession or depression I am confident that with the skills and knowledge I have I’ll deal with that as well.

As Steve pointed out (I think), there is no causal link between inflation and growth except that when inflation has been high growth has (usually) been high. The primary driver of all growth and yield is demand (Grade 8 Economics). If there is high demand for anything (property, shares, Krispy Kreem donuts) prices will go up. No demand prices will stagnate or fall. And demand comes from people. In my brief (15 year) experience there is always demand for something somewhere – if we can pick that demand we can profit.

And THAT my dear friends is the skill.

Not blindly following (anybody’s strategy – mine included) but being savvy enough to roll with the punches and adapt.



On the same lighter side…

But I think I may have found an error in Steve’s algorithm. I have fed Bill’s original post into our FoxTrader software and for some strange reason it says people will invest in Freeman Fox’s fund – Fox Invest - weird how these things work - isn’t it?

 

[Sim]

being savvy enough to roll with the punches and adapt.

I think Peter's words sum up what I was trying to say, quite well.

That's basically what my accountant (very well respected business advisor) told me to do.

He was specifically referring to addressing the risks around investment structures - particularly the (frequently) proposed changes to trusts (but I still think it is relevant in a broader scope).

His advice: do what the wealthy people do. When the rules change (as they do from time to time), you adapt to the new environment and change your strategy to suit.

 

[MarkB]

If there is high demand for anything (property, shares, Krispy Kreem donuts) prices will go up.

Not neccesarily.

Demand cannot be examined in isolation to supply.

Breathable air is (understandably) in very high demand - yet it is free*.

Why is it free? Because it is in such abundant supply.

Sure you could argue that we all pay for it indirectly through our taxes (or through other means), but the reality is that its supply is so abundant that (with few exceptions*) it is free for all of us to use as much as our lungs allow us to.

*The exceptions are persons who rely on a supply of air other than that obtained through "normal" breathing, such as those in intensive care, with oxygen tanks, scuba divers, etc.*

No demand prices will stagnate or fall.

Given that the definition of demand is "quantity demanded at a given price" - by definition zero demand equals zero price in the economic sense.

And demand comes from people.

And Corporations

And Governments.

Indirectly those groups do represent people (shareholders, voters) and they are composed of people (employees, politicians, bureaucrats), but as we all know what is good for the company or the government - may not be good for "the people".

In my brief (15 year) experience there is always demand for something somewhere – if we can pick that demand we can profit.

A financial profit can only be made if the price that consumers are willing to pay for a good or service exceeds the dollar costs of the provision of that good or service.

Demand on its own does not ensure a profit.

Supply side factors should also be taken into account - and supply is always defined as "quantity supplied at a given price".

A hypothetical example would be the developer who builds (supplies) some particular form of real estate, but then has to take a loss on the sale of that real estate. Regardless of the precise causes for that financial loss it has arisen because the quantity demanded at a given price does not exceed the quantity supplied at that price.

(The precise causes could include; a blowout in costs, unforseen supply arising from competitors, a shift in demand, etc).

"Picking demand" is, in itself, not enough to ensure a profit. You must also calculate the costs of supply.




The interaction of demand and supply is like a never ending tug-of-war that is constantly changing.

Both sides of the equation must be taken into account.

Ignore one or both of them at your peril.


MB

 

[simonjulie]

I can also see a situation where the government will increase immigration of younger people allowing for a larger tax base. Our population is not so large by the regions standards (Indonesia 200mill). Germany is one European country that has used this model.
WaySolid

Way Solid and Steve Navra have touched on the subject of immigration.

Rather than letting this post be dominated entirely by men, I thought I would share my POV. I agree with a great deal of what has been said and find the whole supply and demand issue very complex. Yes the aging population will impact but something that Australia will always have is a choice to increase immigration. Yes it needs to be qualified and quantified but I can't see that source of growth going away - the pressure will only increase.

Julie

 

[Bill.L]

Hi all,

MB,
"Breathable air is (understandably) in very high demand - yet it is free*."

Be careful of you choice for "free". Water a long time ago was in the same situation. Now you pay. We had a chinese exchange student a couple of months ago staying with us, and his comments about where his family lived(they were very well off), had been chosen because of the "breathable air". According to him you couldn't breath the air in the city.

So my take is to agree sort of with Peter, demand is the important side of the equasion, no matter how much or little the supply. Take stamps for example. There are some earlier decimal currency stamps that have a limited supply(but still in the millions), however because there is very little demand for them, you can actually purchase sheets of them at such a low price that it is cheaper to use them on envelopes than purchasing new ones!(mind you there is lots of licking to do). Of course other issues of stamps are in demand and obtain a high price.

Peter
"I have not accused you, Bill of being negative."

Umm.. well from the following quotes of yours that you directed to me, what else could I have thought??

"If you believe your view then you would be crazy to continue holding your properties - shouldn't you be selling? And if so why on earth are you holding - isn't hope a flawed methodology of investing?"

"Easy to criticise Bill - easy to strike fear into people's hearts"

"For those nervous about the things Bill has brought up, instead of reading the doomsday predictions you may like to look to history for your lessons and read:"

And all of that from asking a couple of simple questions about numbers that you had brought to the thread for Bonecrusher(post 241).

I am not interested in "flame wars" at all in fact if my posts "flamed" you in any way, I apologise.
However I am interested in answers to questions, and also peoples thoughts about the future and some of their assumptions in planning for it.
Your opinion counts for a lot more than mine for most of the people reading here, as you are the "expert" who is very visable through books ,seminars etc. Whereas I am just another (almost) anonamous forum poster.

I started this thread with my investment philosophy right at the beginning for those who had not read them in the past in other threads.
If you feel that my style is wrong, please go ahead and show us what is wrong with it, as I feel it gives me a "margin of safety", should any of the different future scenarios(ones most likely anyway) come to fruition.

One question I have for you from the other thread though, is based on your investment philosophy, and I still wonder how you see it.(in relation to residential properties)

"Also as you like to be influenced Graham and Dodd, how does their "value investing with a margin of safety" style fit into current investment into "growth" properties with low yields?? "

bye

 

[MarkB]

Be careful of you choice for "free". Water a long time ago was in the same situation. Now you pay.

We had a chinese exchange student a couple of months ago staying with us, and his comments about where his family lived(they were very well off), had been chosen because of the "breathable air". According to him you couldn't breath the air in the city.

Be careful of your choice of example....

Evidently the air is breathable in that city for if you could not breathe the air then no-one would live or work there and it would not be a city would it?

MB

 

[Corsa]

Dear Bill

Firstly, thanks for your post, it certaintly has created a number of differing points of views and ideas.

Your comments regarding your strategies (ie Jan Somers, education, lessons learnt) are of sound basis and certaintly if that works for you then that is great.

I am not going to answer your specific questions on this topic (1,2,3), as I believe that they have been addressed by a number of others in the forum but I will give you my opinion about possible future scenarios.

Having only been in the investing game for 5 minutes, I have not had the opportunity (yet) to be associated with a non-boom time, I have been investing in ideallic economic conditions as well as high capital growth, great tax benefits, and as some say on the forum "anyone could have made money over the past few years investing in property without to much knowledge". So now that the economic conditions are changing, I am:

1. educating myself on other asset classes (Shares, Options, etc) to try different ways of building wealth
2. I am continueing to look for property bargains but am a bit more selective about the depth and breath of my search
3. I am building cash reserves in preparation for the next asset class to take off
4. Taking managed risks as well as managing risk across my existing portfolio to insure myself against outside influences

Although I am conscious about the problems that an ageing population creates moving into retirement, this area is not really my focus or an area that I analyse in a lot of detail. I am looking more about the specific demands for products and services that are created by the DINKS or SINKS, who are:

1. 20 somethings who have spent the past 10 years partying
2. have not saved money for a deposit
3. cannot afford (or choose not to have) a property of there own
4. and are looking to perpetually rent inner-city
5. have the "life-style" and the latte set etc.

This is an area that I know more about and hence am going to be better at predicting the needs and wants of this particular group of individuals.

Your reference to flamewars:

I am not interested in "flame wars" at all in fact if my posts "flamed" you in any way, I apologise.
However I am interested in answers to questions, and also peoples thoughts about the future and some of their assumptions in planning for it.
Your opinion counts for a lot more than mine for most of the people reading here, as you are the "expert" who is very visable through books ,seminars etc. Whereas I am just another (almost) anonamous forum poster.

I have read most of your posts, and I think that in some way you are interested in Flame wars. You sometimes come across as "Contrarian" and negative in your view points and I also am feeling uncomfortable with your continued references to "experts" frequenting the forum, in essence, my interpretation of your opinion is that these experts are full of statistics but low on content.

Knowing that Steve Navra, Peter Spann, Jas Thomler, and Dale Guthrum (and probably a few others) who are the published experts on this forum, I believe that these comments are inflammatory to this group in general as well as to others.


Refer these references of yours:

The topic.
We get various "experts" from time to time on this forum who make all types of claims about how you can get rich. They they trot out numbers from the immediate past and then project them for the next x years.

One of the things I find a little difficult to take is when an "expert"( as in professional information seller), uses numbers about the distant future flippantly. By asking some hard questions does not mean I am negative, nor does playing devils advocate in a discussion.
Would you have us all just sit back and thank every "expert" for sparing us their precious time and pearls of wisdom, while regaling in how much everyone has made following the system, and by how much we can all make by continueing exactly the same for the next 20 years??

Your reference to coming across as negative, is also true, refer:

I often get accused of being too negative, especially when I ask some hard questions. I rarely get the answers to the hard questions.

Thommo, I like the sailing analogy. I'm sure there will be lots of "wind" in this thread, as long as it's not all "hot air".

Acey, "You're long on opinion but short on facts.

Bill, I sense that you have a lot to offer, and a lot of knowledge and experience on the topic of creating wealth.

I have always admired those on this forum, particularly Steve Navra, who often spends countless hours responding to people's questions on this forum, who will always provide a "statistical" basis for his responses, and sometimes I think people forget that they are getting access to this "free" advice that otherwise they may have to pay for and Steve should be thanked for this.

I would like to see you grow more with this forum, to become perhaps more receptive to other people ideas and concepts and to also share more of yourself and the techniques you have used to be successful and to create wealth over the years, we probably can learn a lot from you.

Thanks Bill, this post is just my summary of the situation and I hope that you can this on board as constructive.

Kind regards

Corsa

 

[Steve Navra]

1/ Does anyone see any problems created by having a large(and growing)proportion of the population moving into "retirement"? Something that we have not experienced in the past. With respect as to how this will affect investment markets.

US guy Harry Dent proposes a (nother) stock market crash, when retirees need to start selling off their investments to fund their retirement.

The ageing population syndrome is not all doom and gloom:
I notice a lot of discussion about baby boomers retiring and selling down their assets and that this will cause stock market / property crashes and so on.

Retirees do not necessarily ‘sell down’ their assets; they tend to live off the return on investment of their assets. Even if they did sell assets, the money REMAINS in the economy . . . invested elsewhere. An example might be the purchase of a pension which provides the retiree with income for the rest of their days.

Wherever the money is invested (And I assume it is not kept under a mattress) it will find it’s way back into the greater economy . . . providing jobs, homes and funding infrastructure.

So on this basis, the supply of money in the economy stays fairly static . . . so crashes are not to be expected.

The ACTUAL problem that arises is the funding of resources for this older group . . . and the fact that this group will be paying very little / reduced tax.
I referred to a new moral social environment . . . which was a very euphemistic way of saying the social security system that exists in Australia will need to be changed.
The point is that the decreasing ratio of younger people will be unable to sustain the cost of the greater ratio of retirees.

The majority will of necessity need to work longer . . . to survive.
This then becomes a ‘balancing economic effect’, or a necessary change of paradigm that will keep the system ticking over.

Fortunately, from what I read here on the forum, very few of us forumites will have to worry . . . because our investments will carry us through.

Doom ‘n Gloom can become a self fulfilling prophecy . . . don’t rush in where fools dare, but definitely increase your knowledge and education so that your investments will be successful.

Regards,

Steve

 

[MarkR]

I'd have to agree with Steve on the ageing population point. By the way Steve - have we seen the turning point for the Springbok revival ??

My understanding of history is that the Govt funded retirement pension is a relatively new concept & the 'cradle to the grave' government support for retirees was first implemented in NZ by a PM call Savage in the 1930's, then in Australia in the 40's. By the way he was born in Vic, so technically NZ had an Australian for a PM - now that's something we won't want to be reminded of

Already the compulsary retirement age, super access age, & the age you can claim a Govt pension are being moved back, asset classes that were previously exempt are now being utilised for means testing or paying for the support i.e. the PPOR being used to cover the cost of the nursing home (did this ever get through ?) So the trend is definitely to keep people working longer if they can't self-fund their retirement.

So, in another 10-20 yrs who's to say there will be a lot of people retiring, my take is that most of them will be continuing to work until they are self-funded retirees (through sale of assets & purchase of income producing products, or other means), or they can't work anymore. Therefore people will still need houses, & more of the ones with a block large enough for a granny flat !

So am I stressed about an ageing population - not really, additionally I've noticed in the trend for less kids (smaller families) & parents being older that a lot of the 30 somethings are regretting leaving it so late (my age group although the big 40 hits next yr) & who's to say this regret won't flow on to their kids attitudes who then have kids a bit younger. So in 20 yrs time the birth rate could be reversing the ratio of young workers to old over the next 20 yrs ? Crystal ball anyone ?

Also the changes these events may or may not bring tend to be well shown in advance so I'd be surprised if any dramatic change wasn't get discussed here in plenty of time for people to move approach/asset class. At that point Bill would most definitely not be the minority :

Cheers
Mark

P.S. Bill - Aren't we all contrarians by definition just by being here & demonstrating the non-herd mentality this forum exhibits. I find it great seeing a contrarians amongst the contrarians - & this is meant as a compliment !

 

[see_change]

But doesn't being a contrarian amongst contrarians mean that you end up following the Herd

See Change

 

[MarkR]

Now THAT is funny

 

[House_Keeper]

Wow! what a fantastic thread!

Thanks to everybody for their insightful comments.

Nobody may be able to predict the future, but there are ways to make educated guesses that increases the changes of success. There is technical analysis for shares, and various indicators to observe the property market.

As to ageing and the impact of a older population, it seems to me to be too remote in the future in order to be "guessed" with much accuracy. It is also a progressive change rather than a one-off one. I personally prefer not to ponder too much about it but to focus instead on things that may have an impact the next few years.

Thanks,

 

[dee]

harry dents stuff provides an interesting read, in regard to the baby boomer population retiring 2009-2010. He uses demographics and historical correlations to try and predict what will happen.

I havent read his books
but hears a good synopsis of his latest one

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...3-3863603-4669431?v=glance&s=books&vi=reviews