Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Preparing for life after work. RRSPs, RRIFs, TFSAs, annuities and meeting future financial and psychological needs.
SQRT
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 1902
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 11:33
Location: Alberta/Ontario/Arizona

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by SQRT » 08 May 2013 07:31

Last few posts and links were very useful, thanks. There seems more focus recently on longevity risk and the use of annuities to mitigate. Too bad banks can't sell annuities. It would probably improve pricing.

User avatar
Springbok
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 5049
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 16:47

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by Springbok » 12 May 2013 22:40

CROCKD wrote:I maintain that SWR is an oxymoron or at best a misleading term. It should be restated as SSR- sustainable spending rate, net after tax. With my RRIF representing the lion's share of my resources and a requirement to withdraw well in excess of 4% before tax, SWR does not mean anything unless one defines it as a % of the total of ones resources that can be spent in a year without exhausting them.
The SWR studies were not always on same basis, but I thought as a rough guideline, it meant we could safely withdraw 4% of our total portfolio value. Safely meaning that there would be a high probability of us not exhausting our savings.

We too have RRIFs as lions share of savings. The RRIF withdrawal is not really a withdrawal - it is just a movement of funds from a registered account to an unregistered account. We don't have to spend that money, but we do have to pay tax on it.

Let's say RRIFs amount to $1million and unregistered $500k. At say 76, we have to withdraw move 8% or $80k. If our RRIF withdrawal is taxed at 30%, $24k or 1.6% of total portfolio will have to be allocated to RRIF taxes. That would leave a 2.4% SWR (including taxes on unregistered and other income). In this case $36k, some of which will be needed for those additional taxes. Safe spending rate will be much less than 4% of portfolio ($60k).

SWR will still be 4%, but the rough math indicates that a good part of that (closing on 50%) will be needed to pay taxes. SSR may only be ~2.2%.

Maybe we need to throw caution to the wind and draw a little more :)

couponstrip
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 520
Joined: 14 Jan 2007 15:20

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by couponstrip » 13 May 2013 14:19

Springbok wrote:
The SWR studies were not always on same basis, but I thought as a rough guideline, it meant we could safely withdraw 4% of our total portfolio value. Safely meaning that there would be a high probability of us not exhausting our savings.

We too have RRIFs as lions share of savings. The RRIF withdrawal is not really a withdrawal - it is just a movement of funds from a registered account to an unregistered account. We don't have to spend that money, but we do have to pay tax on it.

Let's say RRIFs amount to $1million and unregistered $500k. At say 76, we have to withdraw move 8% or $80k. If our RRIF withdrawal is taxed at 30%, $24k or 1.6% of total portfolio will have to be allocated to RRIF taxes. That would leave a 2.4% SWR (including taxes on unregistered and other income). In this case $36k, some of which will be needed for those additional taxes. Safe spending rate will be much less than 4% of portfolio ($60k).

SWR will still be 4%, but the rough math indicates that a good part of that (closing on 50%) will be needed to pay taxes. SSR may only be ~2.2%.

Maybe we need to throw caution to the wind and draw a little more :)
This is why I use net figures when determining how close we are to our "starting retirement portfolio target", or "Our Number". All registered savings get docked 35%, and all CCPC savings gets reduced by 25%. All current nonregistered capital gains get reduced by 20%. Then, at least I know what our savings are net of taxes.

Of course this doesn't account for future taxes from more capital gains and dividend/interest income in retirement, but it gives a more accurate picture of what we really have saved so far without the tax liabilities.

We can't spend money on fun stuff that has to go to taxes, and when I calculate our retirement budget/spending plan, taxes are not one of the line items.

User avatar
ghariton
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11811
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by ghariton » 13 May 2013 15:55

couponstrip wrote:This is why I use net figures when determining how close we are to our "starting retirement portfolio target", or "Our Number". All registered savings get docked 35%, and all CCPC savings gets reduced by 25%. All current nonregistered capital gains get reduced by 20%. Then, at least I know what our savings are net of taxes.
Me too, with the difference that I apply a 40% tax rate to RRSP/LIRA.

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

User avatar
adrian2
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11524
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 08:42
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by adrian2 » 13 May 2013 16:08

ghariton wrote:
couponstrip wrote:This is why I use net figures when determining how close we are to our "starting retirement portfolio target", or "Our Number". All registered savings get docked 35%, and all CCPC savings gets reduced by 25%. All current nonregistered capital gains get reduced by 20%. Then, at least I know what our savings are net of taxes.
Me too, with the difference that I apply a 40% tax rate to RRSP/LIRA.
Tax-adjusted asset allocation -- numbers estimated by yours truly.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]

User avatar
ghariton
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11811
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by ghariton » 13 May 2013 18:22

Thank you, Adrian. I'm relieved to see that I fit the guidelines. :wink:

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

like_to_retire
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 4664
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 07:14
Location: Canada

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by like_to_retire » 13 May 2013 18:26

adrian2 wrote:Tax-adjusted asset allocation -- numbers estimated by yours truly.
Taking it even further. If you look at a snapshot in time of a non-registered account that has $100,000 of fixed income versus $100,000 of securities that have been held for a long period of time. I could likely cash out the fixed income and receive $100,000, but no so with the taxable securities that could have large capital gains to pay. Should this affect asset allocation?

ltr

User avatar
adrian2
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11524
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 08:42
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by adrian2 » 14 May 2013 09:11

like_to_retire wrote:
adrian2 wrote:Tax-adjusted asset allocation -- numbers estimated by yours truly.
Taking it even further. If you look at a snapshot in time of a non-registered account that has $100,000 of fixed income versus $100,000 of securities that have been held for a long period of time. I could likely cash out the fixed income and receive $100,000, but no so with the taxable securities that could have large capital gains to pay. Should this affect asset allocation?
It's all estimates, and YMMV. My own bias is close to 100% equities, so feel free to use numbers that reflect your own situation.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]

User avatar
Springbok
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 5049
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 16:47

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by Springbok » 14 May 2013 10:13

like_to_retire wrote:
adrian2 wrote:Tax-adjusted asset allocation -- numbers estimated by yours truly.
Taking it even further. If you look at a snapshot in time of a non-registered account that has $100,000 of fixed income versus $100,000 of securities that have been held for a long period of time. I could likely cash out the fixed income and receive $100,000, but no so with the taxable securities that could have large capital gains to pay. Should this affect asset allocation?

ltr
Taxes are a deterrent to cashing in long held equities.

As a result, if I need cash, I would cash in an equity that was recently transferred from our RRIFs as part of our required withdrawal.
Or something with a tax loss!
Or part of our all equity TFSAs.

We have no fixed income in our unregistered accounts so I guess the question does not come up.

User avatar
adrian2
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11524
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 08:42
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by adrian2 » 14 May 2013 10:25

Springbok wrote:Taxes are a deterrent to cashing in long held equities.
Be grateful that that's the case! :lol:
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]

George$
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2612
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 20:46
Location: Toronto

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by George$ » 19 May 2013 14:20

Another academic study on "Retirement Withdrawal"

From a recent NY Times
4% Rule for Retirement Withdrawals Is Golden No More - By EILENE ZIMMERMAN - Published: May 14, 2013
ONE thing most retirees want to avoid is outliving their money. Since the mid-1990s many of them have relied on a staple of retirement planning known as the 4 percent rule to avoid that. Although the name says 4 percent, the rule is that if retirees withdraw 4.5 percent of their savings every year, adjusted for inflation, their nest egg should last 30 years, the length of time generally used for retirement planning.


And the SSRN reference paper --
The 4 Percent Rule is Not Safe in a Low-Yield World -- Michael S. Finke , Wade Pfau, David Blanchett -January 15, 2013
Abstract:

The safety of a 4% initial withdrawal strategy depends on asset return assumptions. Using historical averages to guide simulations for failure rates for retirees spending an inflation-adjusted 4% of retirement date assets over 30 years results in an estimated failure rate of about 6%. This modest projected failure rate rises sharply if real returns decline. As of January 2013, intermediate-term real interest rates are about 4% less than their historical average. Calibrating bond returns to the January 2013 real yields offered on 5-year TIPS, while maintaining the historical equity premium, causes the projected failure rate for retirement account withdrawals to jump to 57%. The 4% rule cannot be treated as a safe initial withdrawal rate in today’s low interest rate environment.-- my emphasis G$
“The search for truth is more precious than its possession.” Albert Einstein

User avatar
cannew
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 288
Joined: 17 Mar 2010 10:59

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by cannew » 23 Jun 2013 23:00

I support BRIAN5000 statement, that "In other words if you have a dividend portfolio yielding 4% you get to take the 4% to spend but no capital? "

I haven't read all the posts so if someone already made this point I apologize.

I record my Yield on Investment, which includes initial investments, dividend re-investments and additional cash invested, as the value of my portfolio. I do compare it to the market value, but that's just for curiosity. Over the years my investments in dividend growth stocks (the only types of stocks I buy and hardly ever sell), have increased the dividends and currently my Yield on Investment is over 6% and rising. The 6% is almost sufficient to meet my RRIF witdrawal rate. So when I withdraw funds or make a transfer of stock to my non-registered account, I am not really withdrawing any capital.

That's the value of Dividend Growth investing, over the years your stocks should generate a higher yield on your investments and if you have sufficient numbers of years to build your portfolio your yield could easily exceed 10% (that's just the dividend, never mind any increase in capital).

Those who invest in growth stocks are at the mercy of the market, and what happen to their value from 2007 to 2009?
Then relying on a 4% withdrawal rate could really deplete your portfolio because you would have to sell many more stocks if it was a $ amount your really need, not just 4%.

User avatar
ghariton
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11811
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by ghariton » 24 Jun 2013 00:18

cannew wrote:So when I withdraw funds or make a transfer of stock to my non-registered account, I am not really withdrawing any capital.
I disagree. The value of your capital is the present fair market value of the assets. That is what you could sell them for and redeploy the money in other ways, or spend the money on anything you wish. If you withdraw part of that market value, be it capital gains or reinvested dividends, or the original investment, doesn't matter -- you are still withdrawing capital. (Your asset doesn't know how it was financed and doesn't care. The only one who cares is the tax man.)

My belief is that ACB is irrelevant except for tax purposes. The analogy is with poker -- the amount of money you personally have put into the pot should be irrelevant to further betting decisions.
Those who invest in growth stocks are at the mercy of the market, and what happen to their value from 2007 to 2009?
Then relying on a 4% withdrawal rate could really deplete your portfolio because you would have to sell many more stocks if it was a $ amount your really need, not just 4%.
There are many legitimate reasons to avoid growth stocks and concentrate on dividend payers, e.g. if you believe in value investing and interpret high and growing dividend yields as an indicator of value. However, there are many ways to reduce volatility other than avoiding growth stocks. My favourite is to use a barbell portfolio, i.e. have two parts to your portfolio. One part is invested in safe assets, e.g. government bonds. The other part is invested in whatever makes the most sense to you, but often in pretty volatile growth stocks. To control the over all volatility of this portfolio, and so mitigate downward movements, simply adjust the ratio of the first part of the portfolio.

FWIW, in April 2009 I had to come up with $30,000 to help bail out my brother-in-law's failing business. I sold an international equity fund, as that was the most advantageous thing to do from a tax point of view. It didn't cause me any regret or loss of sleep -- it was just part of what you accept when you invest in equities. (Shovelling $30,000 to my brother-in-law did bother me, but it bought peace in the family.)

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

User avatar
NormR
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 4004
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 11:19
Contact:

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by NormR » 24 Jun 2013 00:53

ghariton wrote:My favourite is to use a barbell portfolio, i.e. have two parts to your portfolio. One part is invested in safe assets, e.g. government bonds. The other part is invested in whatever makes the most sense to you, but often in pretty volatile growth stocks
So you like over paying for safety and lotto tickets at the same time? :?

User avatar
Insomniac
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 1828
Joined: 29 Oct 2011 19:01
Location: Vancouver Island

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by Insomniac » 24 Jun 2013 01:10

ghariton wrote: FWIW, in April 2009 I had to come up with $30,000 to help bail out my brother-in-law's failing business. I sold an international equity fund, as that was the most advantageous thing to do from a tax point of view. It didn't cause me any regret or loss of sleep -- it was just part of what you accept when you invest in equities. (Shovelling $30,000 to my brother-in-law did bother me, but it bought peace in the family.)

George
Sounds like your brother-in-law has a good investment strategy!

User avatar
ghariton
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11811
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by ghariton » 24 Jun 2013 01:51

NormR wrote:So you like over paying for safety and lotto tickets at the same time? :?
Think of it as buying positive skew. :wink:

I should have said that was my favourite strategy, with tech stocks comprising the equity end, right up until the 2000-2002 crash. I still have a barbell, but now the equity component consists of broad index ETFs. As for the safety end, I'm willing to pay that price.

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

User avatar
cannew
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 288
Joined: 17 Mar 2010 10:59

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by cannew » 24 Jun 2013 10:24

What I have problems with is the old story that investments will generate 6%, 8%, 10% or more and then suggesting that one can then withdraw 4% or 5% and their portfolio will continue to support them in the future. If we are in a bull market and it continues for some time, it may well look probable on paper.

But that's the problem it only paper growth and the market does not grow upwards even during a bull market. You have to sell your stocks to take advantage of the growth and get your money. During 2007 to 2009 60% of those paper values disappeared. Then what would the 4% of your paper value be?

With dividends if one's investments (cost or market value) are generating 5% or more and that 5% happens to be $45,000 than you will receive those funds whether the market goes up or down. If you've stuck with good stocks they probably continued to increase those dividends as they have in the past.

Sure the banks stopped for afew years, yet the only stock I held which cut the dividend was Manulife.

But each to their own, it would not be very interesting if we we all traded in the same manner.

SQRT
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 1902
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 11:33
Location: Alberta/Ontario/Arizona

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by SQRT » 24 Jun 2013 10:42

I am also a dividend investor with a current yield on my equity portfolio just under 4%. I have read studies that suggest an income approach to withdrawals is suboptimal. These studies are probably correct but I feel better just spending my divs. This way I don't have to decide when and which stocks to liquidate. Decisions that in my view would increase my risk. I also believe that my portfolio of "blue chip" div payers would be less risky than the portfolios used in the studies, ie broad market indexes. I have no evidence to support this but my gut and the fact my portfolio has a beta under 1.
I also agree that yield on an historical cost basis is meaningless. This has been discussed here many times and I congratulate those with more patience than I who continue to debate the issue.
Last edited by SQRT on 24 Jun 2013 13:24, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
deaddog
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 2596
Joined: 19 Jan 2008 19:59
Location: Central BC/Arizona

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by deaddog » 24 Jun 2013 10:46

SQRT wrote:This way I don't have to decide when and which stocks to liquidate. Decisions that I my view would increase my risk.
How so?
Most of our so-called reasoning consists of finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.( J.H. Robinson)

User avatar
cannew
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 288
Joined: 17 Mar 2010 10:59

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by cannew » 24 Jun 2013 11:34

When one invest in gic's you list the value of your investment as the face value of those gic's plus any interest. Sure you can suggest that the gic's can always be cashed in for face value (unless there is an exit fee) where stocks can only be sold at market value.

But why not take into account inflation when evaluating gic's? Isn't that the problem with them, that they never increase in value and the interest is fixed.

I prefer to know exactly how much I've invested in stocks (the cash and re-invested dividend cash) so when I look at what I'm earning its based on what I invested, not what it may be worth if I have to sell. I don't sell at least rarely. Where I have sold it was to get rid of a stock which did not meet my dividend growth expectations and I've only sold one stock at a loss in ten years.

I don't care if the market value goes up or down (which I prefer so I can buy more of my dividend stocks at a lower cost and higher yield), and I rarely look at my market value. I spend more time recording the dividends and dividend increases (and then I'm happy because my return is higher).

SQRT
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
Posts: 1902
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 11:33
Location: Alberta/Ontario/Arizona

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by SQRT » 24 Jun 2013 12:51

deaddog wrote:
SQRT wrote:This way I don't have to decide when and which stocks to liquidate. Decisions that I my view would increase my risk.
How so?
Sorry, my statement was less than clear. If I am happy with my portfolio(I am currently) all I have to do is collect dividends to support my retirement lifestyle. If I had a growth portfolio paying no divs I would have to identify and sell 4% of the portfolio each year in order to support the same lifestyle. Rebalancing which I do very rarely is another issue of course.

User avatar
ghariton
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11811
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by ghariton » 24 Jun 2013 18:22

cannew wrote:I prefer to know exactly how much I've invested in stocks (the cash and re-invested dividend cash) so when I look at what I'm earning its based on what I invested, not what it may be worth if I have to sell.
I guess I should have started by asking: Why do you calculate the yield on your investments? Is it information that you put to use, and if so, how?

If it is to determine how much you can safely withdraw, remember that the value of your original investment does not change with inflation and so goes down in real terms every year. If you withdraw your earnings based on original investment (or ACB), you are eating up your capital without realizing it.
I don't sell at least rarely. Where I have sold it was to get rid of a stock which did not meet my dividend growth expectations and I've only sold one stock at a loss in ten years.
Maybe if you had been looking at market value and comparing with other investment possibilities, you would have sold more often (and made more money). The problem with looking at yield on ACB is that, the more time goes by, the higher the yield goes (making up for accumulated inflation among other things) and the less attractive other investments will look -- even if, in fact, they are better investments in that they deliver more at equivalent or lower risk.
I don't care if the market value goes up or down (which I prefer so I can buy more of my dividend stocks at a lower cost and higher yield), and I rarely look at my market value.
A buy-and-hold investor. :wink: I can relate to that.

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

User avatar
cannew
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 288
Joined: 17 Mar 2010 10:59

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by cannew » 24 Jun 2013 18:43

ghariton wrote:[Why do you calculate the yield on your investments? Is it information that you put to use, and if so, how?
I want to know what my yield is on each stock I own based on my ACB. I use it to determine if the stock is meeting my main goal (each stock should generate a stream of income and the stream should grow). I use other criteria to evaluate stocks but as long as the dividend remains safe and is growing I HOLD. Especially since some of my holding are generating double digit return on my ACB.

We dividend growth investors recognize that as the dividend grows so does the price of the stock, eventually. Check it out! So inflation is not a concern because most of my stock do increase in value along with the dividend.
ghariton wrote: Maybe if you had been looking at market value and comparing with other investment possibilities, you would have sold more often (and made more money). The problem with looking at yield on ACB is that, the more time goes by, the higher the yield goes (making up for accumulated inflation among other things) and the less attractive other investments will look -- even if, in fact, they are better investments in that they deliver more at equivalent or lower risk.
Why would I want to sell a stock who's dividend is higher than 5% and growing? Sell, take a gain, then I would have to find another stock and HOPE it provides as good a return and will grow? I'm not interested in generating commissions and playing a guessing game. I have a stable of stocks who's met my goals and I add to them when they are value priced.

User avatar
ghariton
Diamond Ring
Diamond Ring
Posts: 11811
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by ghariton » 24 Jun 2013 23:37

cannew wrote:Why would I want to sell a stock who's dividend is higher than 5% and growing? Sell, take a gain, then I would have to find another stock and HOPE it provides as good a return and will grow? I'm not interested in generating commissions and playing a guessing game. I have a stable of stocks who's met my goals and I add to them when they are value priced.
Consider a hypothetical stock A, which I bought ten years ago for $100 a share. For simplicity assume that the ACB today is still $100. The dividend, originally $2 a share, is now $10 a share. The market price of the shares has also increased, and is now $500 a share.

The dividend yield based on market value is 2%. Based on ACB, the dividend yield is 10%.

Suppose now that I learn about a company whose stock B currently sells for $100 a share, but which pays a dividend of $4, for a dividend yield relative to market value of 4%. Suppose that in all other aspects -- volatility, skewness of returns, future growth prospects -- the two companies are the same. (This is plausible if one believes that successful stock picking is possible.)

Comparing dividend yield on market value of A and B, I sell A and buy B. Comparing dividend yield on ACB of A and B, I keep A and let B go.

Which is the right decision?

George
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.

User avatar
cannew
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
Posts: 288
Joined: 17 Mar 2010 10:59

Re: Sustainable Withdrawal Rates

Post by cannew » 25 Jun 2013 10:19

ghariton wrote:
Suppose now that I learn about a company whose stock B currently sells for $100 a share, but which pays a dividend of $4, for a dividend yield relative to market value of 4%. Suppose that in all other aspects -- volatility, skewness of returns, future growth prospects -- the two companies are the same. (This is plausible if one believes that successful stock picking is possible.)

Comparing dividend yield on market value of A and B, I sell A and buy B. Comparing dividend yield on ACB of A and B, I keep A and let B go.

Which is the right decision?

George
Company A has maintained approx 2% yield over the 10 yrs. In other words as the dividend grew do did the price of the stock.

Company B offering a 4% yield may well be as good a stock and worth buying. If one checks it's previous 10 yr dividend history and it has shown to be a solid company than it probably is a good buy.

Would I sell A to buy B, NO. A has proven it's worth and I would never sell it.
Last edited by cannew on 25 Jun 2013 11:58, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply