FYI: U.S. stocks edged higher on Monday as financial shares recovered from last week’s losses and higher oil prices lifted energy shares.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-15/stocks-in-asia-to-gain-as-u-s-inflation-slows-markets-wrap
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-higher-as-bank-stocks-rebound-apple-gains-idUSKBN1CL1EX
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-poised-for-fresh-high-in-muted-trading-as-investors-brace-for-week-of-earnings-2017-10-16/print
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/indexes-close-at-new-highs-dow-eyes-23000-as-six-blue-chips-rally/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/us-stocks-earnings-netflix-trump.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2017-10-16/your-evening-briefing
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Positive
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

FYI: The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority on Monday ordered Wells Fargo & Co.’s (WFC.N) clearing services and Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network to pay customers $3.4 million in restitution for sales practice issues related to unsuitable recommendations of certain investment products.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-finra-fine/finra-orders-wells-fargo-to-pay-clients-3-4-million-over-sales-practice-issues-idUSKBN1CL230

I recently received a written reminder from one of my IRA custodians that they apparently mailed all their clients. (I think it came from Oakmark.) The abandonment laws vary by state.
Their advice was to either (1) phone them once a year or (2) login to your account online once a year. Since I login to all my accounts at least once a year, I let it go at that. I think it’s a good practice to change passwords once or twice a year. And doing so ought to satisfy anyone looking on that you’re still alive.

As I recall, you're in Michigan. I don't know whether all states follow this rule, but in Michigan, its three year clock doesn't begin running until you're 70.5:

An IRA (Individual Retirement Account) account, Keogh plan, or 401K plan becomes distributable under the terms of the account or plan [i.e. RMDs for the IRA]. If the plan or account requires a distribution at a certain point in time, then the three-year dormancy period begins at that point.

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/2013i_2598_7.pdf
I don't know any state that has law that property escheats in less than three years, though some financial institutions may be obnoxious and freeze your account after a year of inactivity. (I made an old post somewhere about WF doing this, and making a lot of errors along the way.) So it's still a good idea to check in yearly.

@Gary,
You would complete an (Traditional, 401K, 403b, etc.) IRA to Roth IRA Conversion if the future Rate of Return (ROR) will be higher for the Roth IRA comparef to a tax deferred IRA. Article below discusses this in detail using this calculator (Optimal Retirement Planner).
From Article:

A onetime conversion of the entire IRA during the first year of retirement is technically feasible, sometimes practiced, but rarely part of an optimal plan.

Also, for strategic periodic IRA to Roth IRA conversions,

We find that in comparing two optimal plans, differing only in whether or not conversions are allowed, that there is in the neighborhood of a 1 percent improvement in the conversion plan’s disposable income compared to the non-conversion plan.

In the conclusion of article:

It would seem desirable to convert when asset prices are depressed because there is less tax paid and the state of the market is amenable to a recovery. Following the same logic, converting when asset prices are inflated would seem imprudent.

Measuring the Financial Consequences of IRA to Roth IRA Conversions

FYI: Influential bond investor Bill Gross of Janus Henderson Investors said on Monday that financial markets are artificially compressed and capitalism distorted because of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-janushenderson/bill-gross-of-janus-blames-fed-for-fake-markets-idUSKBN1CE2FG

Hi Guys,
Being an "aimer" is very common. We all have goals. The challenge is how realistic those goals are. What are the odds of achieving those goals? Given market uncertainties, a 100% success goal is very bushy-tailed. But it is achievable if an investor is flexible to changing circumstances.
An early step in that process is to identify the likely odds of success. Monte Carlo simulators provide one useful tool to make those estimates. That tool not only yields the odds for success, but also makes estimates of end wealth, and a timeline for the portfolio failures. If those failure times are well beyond likely life expectancy, the failures are far less significant for planning purposes.
I well understand why only a 95% portfolio survival projection would be troublesome for some folks. It was for me. However, once that estimate is known, an investor could think about adjusting his withdrawal plan to alleviate that possibility.
When planning my retirement, I programmed my own version of a Monte Carlo code. I frequently calculated portfolio survival likelihoods in the mid-90% ranges. What to do? To improve that survival rate, I modified the code to reduce drawdowns by an input value (like 10%) if annual market returns were negative for some specified years. Withdrawals were increased once the markets turned positive in the simulations.
I explored many such portfolio survival issues by using my easily modified Monte Carlo code. Portfolio survival rates of very near 100% could be projected when very modest withdrawal rate flexibility was allowed. Like in so many other life situations, flexibility is a winning strategy.
My Monte Carlo calculations identified the frequency of shortfalls, the magnitudes of any shortfalls, and the timeframe of those shortfalls. These were all useful inputs for my retirement decision. The very modest adjustments needed to alleviate that unacceptable outcome gave great comfort. These additional Monte Carlo simulations cemented my retirement decision.
I believe (alternately, IMHO if you dislike "I believe") that Monte Carlo simulations would help many MFOers when considering their retirement decision.
Thanks for the Kitces reference. Be aware that he has a vested interest in the subject matter of that referenced article. He closes his piece with the following declaration:
"Michael Kitces has a financial interest in the US distribution of the Timeline app."
I have no such vested interest in Monte Carlo codes. I merely advocate that they be included as one tool to support investment decisions. They permit easy multiple sensitivity analyses. Of course, they depend on good input data ranges. They do not stand alone.
Best Wishes

I always wonder what the practical effect of such fine distinction-making is.
'For the particular kind of [prostate, breast] cancer you have, the new data show that watchful waiting outcomes are as good in terms of mortality and life quality as treatment, often better, and the number needed to treat is yada yada. Discuss with your doctor whether treatment or monitoring is right for you.'
'Return-sequence risk is always significant and badly down years at the start of your retirement can be deleterious to all of your planning. Discuss with your adviser the consequences of not planning yada yada ...'
And then what? What is the discussion? What can it change besides (dis)comfort level and moves toward drastic preventive actions? How wise is it to have 'just get rid of it' surgery or go to all laddered CDs? In the worst case, plenty wise. So is the discussion necessarily education in likelihood of worst cases?

Some of it certainly is education about worst case probabilities. There's a general belief that outcomes are better if treatment is more aggressive. Sometimes that's true, often it's not, especially given possibilities of false positives (not ill when tests say otherwise).
For example, mammograms are not too reliable with dense breast tissue. Here's a page from the American Cancer Society suggesting in that case you talk with your doctor, because on the one hand you might want to also have an MRI. But it also says that MRIs produce false positives leading to more tests and biopsies (which have their own risks).
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/mammograms/breast-density-and-your-mammogram-report.html
Similarly, PSA tests are not especially reliable and can lead to biopsies with risks.
A good part of the conversation can simply be an exploration of what's really important to you. In some other thread was a link to an article on how the usual financial planning questions are not helpful, e.g. "would you risk a 20% loss if 2/3 of the time you'd gain 15%?" People don't know what they want or how they'd react if actually (not hypothetically) faced with a 20% loss.
So IMHO talking with a planner at length about what really concerns you and discussing the cost/benefits of different risk mitigators (e.g. immediate annuities, long term care insurance, greater cash allocations, etc.) is a good use of time.
Different people place different values on a given outcome. Worse, most people don't even have a clear idea of how they value each possible outcome.
At one end of the spectrum you have women who will have radical mastectomies because they have a genetic risk of cancer. They choose life, regardless of its quality, over all else. At the other end of the spectrum, you have men who will decline prostate cancer treatment even when faced with certain death, rather than assume any risk of impotence due to treatment.
There are real people like that. I think I can appreciate their perspectives even if I don't agree with them.
Personally, I don't want to go broke, period. In that financial sense, I take an extreme position. A magic number of, say 95% chance of success tells me nothing. I need to know what the 5% of paths look like. Then I can explore possible followup actions that would increase success to 100%.
Likewise with that doctor talk. It's difficult to follow radiation therapy with surgery if the radiation is unsuccessful, while the reverse is much easier. That's a consideration in selecting choice of treatment, if one is willing to live with the much higher likelihood of a degraded quality of life due to multiple therapies.
Knowing not only the odds but the paths of outcomes enables you to plan for dealing with possible failures. And for not doing something just because the expert, whether physician or advisor, felt it was best in his not so humble opinion.

FYI: Studies have consistently shown that dividend-paying stocks tend to outperform their non-dividend paying counterparts over time. From 1930 to 2015, roughly 43% of the S&P 500’s total return came from dividends.
Companies with long histories of paying and growing their dividends demonstrate a financial strength and consistency that makes them ideal investments for most portfolios. Investors who choose funds that target these dividend growth stocks can generate strong risk-adjusted returns over the long term.
If you’re an investor looking to generate income or take advantage of a strategy with a long-term track record of success, consider adding one of these funds to your portfolio. In case you are wondering whether mutual funds are right for you, you should read why mutual funds, in general, should be part of your portfolio
Regards,
Ted
http://mutualfunds.com/news/2015/12/10/the-top-mutual-funds-for-dividend-growth/?utm_source=MutualFunds.com&utm_campaign=bd2cebe35d-Dispatch_Weekend_Engage_09_30_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_83e106a88d-bd2cebe35d-290921629

Hi msf,
Thank you for reading my post, but an especial thanks for alerting me to my error in making a double reference. The Portfolio Visualizer website provides an excellent Monte Carlo simulator, but it doesn't merit a double endorsement.
In my initial post, I meant to acknowledge a Monte Carlo simulator that is presented on the MoneyChimp website. It is very simple to use. I have referenced it in earlier postings. Here is the corrected, initial Link:
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/volatility/retirement.hem
Thanks again for alerting me to my mistake.
When doing any financial analysis, I too am often puzzled over how extensive the data set should be in terms of timespan. The marketplace is in constant change and the relevance of data going back numerous decades is suspect.
Far too much has changed. We have morphed from an agricultural dominated economy to an industrial powerhouse. Market investing is now dominated by institutional agencies and not by individual players. Factors like these should influence the data set selection.
Depending on the scope and purpose of the research, the timeframe for the selected supportive data sets must be prudently chosen. "Garbage In, Garbage Out" applies. For most of the limited analyses that I do, I favor data from after WW II. I recognize the shortfall in numbers that that decision introduces, but I believe these data are more relevant. When doing any statistical analysis, tradeoffs of this kind always must be made. Decisions like these are not always obvious or easy.
To excite some additional responses I'll close,with this decision making quote from Donald Trump: "I have made the tough decisions, always with an eye toward the bottom line. Perhaps it's time America was run like a business."
I anticipate and await acerbic comments.
Best Wishes

With respect to tools that use real data as opposed to hypothetical random data (that downplay the possibility of multiyear bears found in historical data) being somehow inferior or limited to merely hundreds of sequences, here's some what what Kitces writes:

There’s never been any way to illustrate those alternative assumptions [e.g. "spending changes based on varying goals or changing needs"], as even the best financial planning software is still built around straight-line assumptions and Monte Carlo analysis.
Until now, as in the past year, two new software solutions for advisors have come forth ...

While those two tools are designed for advisors, what I want to highlight is that they are both based on historical data spanning a century (one using montly CRSP data back to 1920) or more (the other using DMS global data of a score of countries going back to 1900). Not small data sets, and as I read Kitces, better than any existing probability-based tools.
He goes on to note that even these tools are best used for educational purposes, not planning:

[They] are better viewed as a mechanism to teach and illustrate safe withdrawal rates, the sustainability of (steady) retirement withdrawals in the face of various market return sequences, and the impact of asset allocation ... on the sustainability of portfolio distributions. In other words, they can set the groundwork for initial client education about sequence of return risk and its consequences

Hi Guys,
Wow! This assembly of articles by financial writer Johnathan Clements is a real tour-de-force. It touches all the bases that a retiree should consider before retirement, during the decision process, and after retirement. In general, these short pieces yield excellent insights and advice.
But this impressive body of work has a significant shortfall in the area of examining alternate possible financial,scenarios. Based on my earlier submittals, I'm sure many of you can make an accurate guesstimate of what I beleve that area is.
The sequence of investment returns is critical in determining the value and survival of any portfolio during both its accumulation and withdrawal phases. In examining likely financial scenarios, Clements uses the FIRECalc tool kit to explore a limited number of those sequences. I say limited because FIRECalc deploys real historical data with various starting points. This technique generates hundreds of scenarios that have been experienced.
Given the uncertainty of future returns, even hundreds of cases that have been already recorded is simply not enough data when considering all future uncertainties. Thousands and thousands of simulations provide a more complete set of possibities. Projections must be made in terms of likelihoods and odds. Nothing more definitive is possible.
Monte Carlo tools and numerous analyses with those tools are the best way to provide those odds. These tools are readily accessible and easy to use. You need not be a mathematician to productively deploy them. In earlier posts, I have referenced these tools; some are more elegant than others but all serve their basic function well. Here is a Link to a very easy input one:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
Another Monte Carlo simulator that requires a few more inputs is listed below:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
Sorry for my repeated references, but perhaps some MFOers missed my past postings. Both these tools do good work.
I hope you visit them and try a few cases that represent your special,circumstances. It will be a learning experience that will illuminate some possible dangers if you do a couple of parametric input scenarios. Good luck! Doing these analyses will reduce your need for luck and will help guide your investment and retirement decisions.
Best Wishes

FYI: If you just entered the workforce, it’s time to start preparing for retirement. Over the next four decades, you might pull in tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. An October 2012 Census Bureau study estimates that those with a bachelor’s degree have average lifetime earnings of $2.4 million, figured in today’s dollars.
Of course, it’s lucky you have all that income coming in, because ahead of you lies life’s toughest financial task: amassing enough money so you can retire in comfort. In dry economic terms, your working career is about accumulating enough financial capital, so that one day you’ll no longer need the income from your human capital. This, alas, is a task that most Americans are not good at.
Want to do better? As you ponder how to pay for retirement, it’s helpful to think about your life in three stages—your 20s, 30s and 40s, your 50s and early 60s, and age 65 and beyond—which is how this part of the guide is divvied up.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.humbledollar.com/money-guide/retirement/

FYI: The three main U.S. indexes climbed to fresh record-highs for the fourth day in a row on Thursday, fueled by gains in technology stocks, including Microsoft (MSFT.O) and Amazon.com (AMZN.O).
Nine of the 11 major S&P indexes were higher, led by the information technology .SPLRCT and financial .SPSY sectors. Tech stocks, which have powered much of the recent rally, have risen about 26 percent this year.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-04/dollar-bonds-are-listless-as-oil-drops-below-50-markets-wrap
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-indexes-scale-fresh-record-highs-on-tech-gains-idUSKBN1CA18I
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-set-to-hover-at-record-levels-with-fed-speakers-in-the-spotlight-2017-10-05/print
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/nasdaq-leads-solid-up-session-as-bull-run-continues-unabated/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/us-stocks-sp-record-high.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2017-10-05/your-evening-briefing
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Positive
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

As I have expressed before, IMO; one may continue to name the ongoing markets since the big melt as still feeling the effects of policy(s) and that "this time is still different" and thus the "mean regression chart line" is progressive/dynamic, not static and has the baseline in "float" mode. The 2008/2009 market melt was/is an overwhelming shift in the financial marketplace that is still impacting and discovering its future path.
In other words, jolts to the market come along that can take years to work their way through. There may or may not be an ultra long term static "mean regression chart line", but at least for these multi-year periods, it's dynamic.
Even assuming an ultimately constant mean, because of these jolts it seems one needs an extremely long time frame to compute that average - say 100 years or more, in order to include the jolt of the Great Depression, or maybe 150 years back to the panics of the late 1800s, or ... At some point you're essentially averaging the entire "modern" history of the stock market.
More info from the 1928-present NYU/Stern data set I've cited (this table was in the spreadsheet, they're not date ranges I selected):

Period     S&P 500   3 mo Treas   10 Yr Treas
1928-2016  11.42%     3.46%        5.18%
1967-2016  11.45%     4.88%        7.08%
2007-2016   8.64%     0.74%        5.03%

. The S&P 500 is up "only" about 15% YTD. If it ends 2017 up 20%, that would raise arithmetic mean of 2007-2017 just to 9.68%. If you're a believer in a constant long term mean, that suggests that recovery from the 2008 jolt still has years to go.

Hi @msf
Thank you for your presentation.
I started this reply to the thread relative to the bond portion of this discussion. I've obviously blipped more just below.
What I'll name, The Exquisite Investor; being without much meaningful flaw as to getting the timing right 75% of the time and being patient enough to wait until the next trading (buy/sell) shows its face via technical numbers in particular, but with an understanding of real world events that can/do/may factor into why the technical numbers arrive and depart creating a more possible profitable investment.
I suppose this process could place this as to one being a "value" investor; being careful enough to try to understand that some "value" within investment sectors is cheap for a good reason and may remain cheap for a long time; a perverted "mean".
As I have expressed before, IMO; one may continue to name the ongoing markets since the big melt as still feeling the effects of policy(s) and that "this time is still different" and thus the "mean regression chart line" is progressive/dynamic, not static and has the baseline in "float" mode. The 2008/2009 market melt was/is an overwhelming shift in the financial marketplace that is still impacting and discovering its future path.
I may be completely wrong about any or all of this....tis my view at this time. @Tony may respond as to the technical side.
The below chart compare for about 10 years for EDV and SDY may surprise a few folks for total returns over the time frame. I recall @bee using EDV for reference points against other sectors for cross over points, etc. I fully expect most folks would not consider a holding as EDV or similar versus a more likely holding of a total bond fund or a 10 year Treasury fund for a bond area investment. One is able to view the movement of EDV and cross overs points relative to my pick of SDY for reference, especially during the ongoing turmoil of the markets for several years after the melt. Europe, in particular; was still attempting to find a path forward for several years, which includes events as "Greece" being in the news headlines as well as the ongoing, questionable stability of many European banks during the "recovery" period.
Yes, the 10 year Treasury will remain a reference point and this is valid for on overview of risk on or off conditions, but remains a choice of various bond types, eh?
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?EDV,SDY&n=2467&O=011000
Okay, time for another coffee, yes?
Regards,
Catch

Hi Guys,
Change happens; it is a certainty.
"Richard Russell, the famous Dow Theorist, once noted that over a shorter time frame almost anything can happen in the financial markets, but over much longer, meaningful periods of time (referring to years), the surest rule in the stock market is the rule called "regression to the mean.""
This quote was extracted from this regression advocating article:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/2315705-regression-to-the-mean-and-why-investors-should-not-ignore-its-importance
I am in complete agreement with the main theme of this article. There is a compelling and irresistible market pull towards a regression-to-the-mean. In any single year, almost any extreme is possible; anything can and does happen even if probabilities are low. But as the timeframe expands, the marketplace adjusts to deliver more predictable average returns. Over time, sanity rules.
I have zero confidence that I can predict tomorrow's market returns, but I am very comfortable about staying in the market for the loooong run.
Best Wishes

Thanks for linking this article @Ted,
Well worth the read:

The second, specifically in the fintech world, is the blockchain. Many technologists tell me the block chain is the most important innovations in human history. They equate it in terms of importance to fire, the wheel and the internet.
The typical financial advisor has either never heard of the blockchain or is unable to describe it, meaning that advisors today are as clueless as their clients. And that’s not a healthy situation for the client. The blockchain is the underlying technology that was used to develop bitcoin, the world’s first digital currency.

Since XT's inception it has trailed QQQ:

FYI: Ric Edelman, founder of Edelman Financial Services, and one of the driving forces behind the creation of the $1.35 billion iShares Exponential Technologies ETF (XT), has had an interest in technology as well as its implications for advisors and investors. His most recent book, The Truth About Your Future, is all about how rapid technological advances will radically change how we live, invest and retire. ETF.com chatted with him about how fintech is helping bring to fruition the future he anticipates.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/fintech-will-change-advisory-game?nopaging=1
MFO's Link To amazon.Com: Ric Edelman: "The Truth About your Future"
https://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Your-Future-Money/dp/1501163809/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506935763&sr=8-1&keywords=the+truth+about+your+future
IShares Fact Sheet XT:
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/272532/XT?cid=ppc:ishares_us:google:tickers&gclid=Cj0KCQjwx8fOBRD7ARIsAPVq-NkxaNRvf4UP9fJvwQ8ya_n8PHh-IZj-j0uKaem2DNGg8tALlkAiKKoaAkfPEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
M* Snapshot XT:
http://www.morningstar.com/etfs/XNAS/XT/quote.html

Here's the full Natixis 2017 global survey report:
http://durableportfolios.com/global/understanding-investors/2017-global-survey-of-individual-investors-retirement-report
and the full Natixis press release on the US slice of that survey:
https://ngam.natixis.com/us/resources/2017-global-individual-investor-survey-press-release
(note that the table at the bottom of that US press release is global data, not data limited to US participants)
Just looking at the figures in the excerpt Ted quoted, my reaction was: what are these people smoking?
The historical real return of the US large cap market over the last century has been 7%. Depending on your source, bonds (10 year Treasuries) have returned between 2% and 6% less than stocks.
[See the stock link above: risk premium of stocks over bonds of 6%, historical nominal bond return of 5% with inflation average of 2%-3%, or simply the difference in nominal returns of stocks and bonds, which has been 2% or greater over the past 90 years.]
So even if the markets produce average real returns going forward (not expected over the next decade), you'd need a very aggressive (nearly all stock) portfolio to get to the 5.9% real return that advisors are supposedly predicting. (The 5.9%/advisors and 8.9%/investors figures are not in the Natixis releases, so they must come from the full survey.)
The FA Mag article says that there's a disconnect (51% difference) between investors and advisors, based on these two figures. If there is this disconnect, what does that say about the job that advisors are doing in educating and guiding their clients?
But there is another possibility. Investors may not understand what real return means, and are simply reporting nominal return expectations. That 3% difference would fall within a reasonable range of inflation possibilities. The Natixis report seems to support this interpretation of the data, as it observes that only 1/6 of Millennials (17%) "have factored inflation into their retirement savings planning." (The next sentence of the release hypothesizes a 3% inflation rate.)
Finally, note that the survey may not be representative of American households - just ones with money. It surveyed only investors with over $100K in investable assets. (About 30% Gen X, 30% Gen Y, 30% Boomers, 10% Retirees.) Most households don't have nearly that much in net worth let alone investable assets, though that's a whole 'nuther story.