NOTE: You have two choices. I have written this article to address some of the more frantic questions I have received in the last 6 weeks on matters of finance, the economy and the market and what to consider next.
Choice 1 – Reading and understanding the entire article will take you about 30-45 minutes.
Choice 2 – Skipping to the last 4 paragraphs for ideas and solutions will take you 5-8 minutes.
Although I believe that the information is crucial, powerful and beneficial, I also understand if just the thought of reading this through gives you a headache. I hope you get through it all, I believe it will benefit you 1000 times over. Good luck.
Mike Sidhu April 2, 2020
These are interesting times indeed.
There are a lot of concerned people filling up my inbox asking questions such as “what should I do?” or “where should I put my money?” While the correct answer is, “it depends,” starting with gaining an elementary understanding of the complex financial system is crucial to be able to think through your answers critically. For example, one doesn’t need to understand the totality of the financial system to move forward and make decisions. It’s a great time to come back to principles and fundamentals rather than tactics and strategies. It’s a great time to go through the pain of discipline instead of the future pain of regret. It’s also essential to choose your destination before choosing your path. There is no point in trying to decide what direction to go without knowing what the goal is and finding yourself on the map.
I’ve had many different roles in the past 25 years in finance, including public and private market investments, underwriting loans and mortgages, foreign exchange, precious metals, and experienced three market corrections. I’ve helped hundreds of clients secure life, disability and critical illness insurance policies and continue to do so. I’ve been a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) since 2006 and held the position as a mentor and strategist since 2015. I have developed a specialization advising clients in consulting for financial and tax professionals on issues relating to corporate restructuring, succession and estate planning, and specifically using engineered insurance contracts that leverage advantages available to every Canadian through the Income Tax Act. I’ve worked and seen both the inside and outside of the banking system and have that competitive knowledge. I discovered Austrian Economics (a rational approach to sound economics and finance principles) after 19 years in the industry and found myself devouring books on economic theory at a voracious pace. I don’t say this to bestow any special privilege, only that what I will explain is not hubris or unfounded opinion, and that it carries the apodictic weight of experience, connections, continual education and research made available to me over the last 25 plus years.
This article will provide an elementary understanding of the complex financial system to alleviate some of your anxiety.
Although the following may be lengthy and should you choose to exercise your patience to go through the entire article, the history of this situation is crucial to understand the best way to move forward. I can’t provide every detail but only a summary of some of the things I have learned, in hopes that the information will serve and add value to you. The truth is much like discovering the picture hidden behind an optical illusion – once you see it, you wonder how you didn’t see it before.
The turn of events that have dramatically unfolded since mid-February and the anxiety over making future decisions have been astonishing. From a financial perspective, our economy is in a quandary, despite in an interview on March 26, 2020, US FED Chair Jerome Powell suggesting that “There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with our economy.” I appreciate that someone in a leadership role such as the US FED Chair cannot induce fear into the system, but simultaneously concerned about the mixed and confusing signals that these statements create. People are running out of real solutions and of places to get answers without getting lost in the misinformation and the rhetoric.
Without a clear picture of the future, people tend to regress their planning time horizon from thinking about future success to thinking about their security, such as how much toilet paper is in their house. The great economist Ludwig Von Mises once said that people would take action to improve their lives, but only when those actions have a clear correlation to improved results. When people lose sight of their long-term future, it leads to shorter-term thinking and reverting to survival instincts. This perspective has obvious negative long-term repercussions.
Avoiding the trap of short-term thinking starts with being willing to set aside our blind acceptance and willful ignorance about how governments think about recessions and how they mismanage them. This mismanagement is not because we have bad people in government, but that their economic philosophy is flawed. Some economists have fought for greater financial control to prevent recessions, while others have fought for less. The evidence suggests that following this managed course of action has not performed as intended. With every recession comes a band-aid solution that defers instead of solving the underlying issues, and compounds into making the next economic failure worse. It exposes the fundamental mindset flaws of legislators extolling the benefits of Keynesian Economics – the very idea that man is omniscient and infallible.
Instead, if left alone, each business cycle of expansion and contraction self-corrects. It is so efficient that each cycle fixes its issues so that they don’t carry forward to the next period of expansion. For example, if a company with too much debt goes bankrupt because they over-leveraged, instead of a government bailout to “save jobs” is authorized, that company should fold. We allow companies that make good decisions to keep their own money but let companies that make bad decisions to be a burden to the taxpayer. Over time, the mindset of transferring losses to the public sector bailouts infects the minds of private companies who make riskier decisions and bet on the probability of getting rescued. These deferred problems fester and are never adequately dealt in time for the next crash. Imagine your doctor giving you two aspirins and a band-aid for a cut to a major artery.
The business cycle has always had ups and downs, which matches the natural flow of the world.
This balance has described in many religious texts and theories, such as the relationship between Ying and Yang. Leonardo Bigollo Pisano described a sequence known as the Fibonacci Numbers in his book “Liber Abaci” in 1202. His theory unexpectedly also explained the natural law of cyclical growth, that all progression is followed by a period of retraction. Fruit trees grow, produce fruit, and then lose their leaves. Human progress follows this pattern as a wave, expansion to retraction, then expansion again instead of unabated and permanent growth. These corrections and growth have inexorably shackled prosperity that cannot continue uninterrupted. It’s a healthy – and predictable – pruning. It’s about expecting the unexpected Black Swan events. Mathematically, it is expressed as 1 up to 3, down to 2, up to 5, down to 3, up to 8, down to 5, up to 13, down to 8, up to 21, and so on. Human history has been subjected to this enduring trend of balanced tension between Ying and Yang. Mess with this delicate tension at our peril. With every action, there is a more significant reaction, and while the reaction might be deferred or invisible on the surface, it will come to pass.
David Ricardo, inspired by the works of Adam Smith, concluded that a natural and ongoing relationship exists between depressions and expansions. But it wasn’t until Ludwig Von Mises wrote “Theory of Money and Credit” in 1912 when he explained the influence of bank credit in the business cycle. Von Mises explained that supply and demand balanced the free price system, and no cumulative boom and busts cycles can develop. All cycles were independent of each other, and the free market was, in fact, a system of self-correction. However, with the influence of government acting through Central Banks, those efforts artificially manipulated interest rates and monetary expansion. They led to an unavoidable cumulative build-up of residual effects – cycle after cycle, crash after crash – each one becoming more pronounced than the last.
When investors devote their money to a business or a project, they look at the market signals to give them a better understanding of the potential returns. Clear market signals are the most efficient and best way to provide clarity to the business owner or investor that they will either be profitable or not in the future. When governments and central banks act, they create future uncertainty by distorting these market signals. Businesses and investors have less clarity about the future return on their capital (or frankly OF their capital), and this creates an environment questionable for doing business. People are less likely to invest if their future is uncertain.
It’s not that we can’t avoid recessions, but we can avoid the lingering effects.
By making economic challenges less painful, society has changed its behaviour. For example, a parent who overly coddles their child raises an unresilient adult, whereas an excessively neurotic or manic parent raises a fearful adult. The right balance may lie in between, where the child has resiliency without being crippled with fear. With governments in charge of the economy instead of creating the right environment for our success, we become increasingly reliant on government action just to survive. The problem gets worse until it is past the time of solving these compounding issues, and we paint ourselves into a corner. This inflation problem became acute, starting in the late 1960s and persists today. In the mid-1960s, only one spouse in the family worked, moving into both parents working, moving into one or both parents having a side hustle, moving into a full “gig economy.” This gig economy (Airbnb, Skip the Dishes, Uber, the MLM industry) is just one expression of how inflation has run out of control, and people are looking to earn extra income just to maintain their lifestyle. In essence, the trajectory of inflation puts us behind even with making the same income year after year. When government action, while at first seems benign, it quickly becomes the cure that is worse than the virus. Inflation’s main problem is from the government going into debt and the Central Bank issuing artificial liquidity into the market.
THE NEXT FEW PARAGRAPHS ARE TECHNICAL AND DETAILED. FOR THOSE OF YOU WISHING TO SKIP THESE DETAILS, PLEASE FORWARD TO THE LAST FOUR PARAGRAPHS TO PICK UP ON CONSIDERATIONS ON THE CURRENT MARKET.
After the financial recessions plaguing the modern world through the 19th Century, it was suggested that society could intellectually conquer the business cycle to create a steady-state economy that would grow without the risk of recession.
To control inflation in this manner, legislators and industry collaborated to produce policies to establish a central banking system with the desired control over an economy and reduce the impact of recessions. Generating this kind of absolute power over an economy would also require absolute control over money. By controlling money, it could “create the blissful illusion of unparalleled prosperity,” as stated by Murray Rothbard in his 1963 book “What Has Government Done With Our Money.” With the illusion of prosperity in place, it was assumed that people would be happier, and would accept the financial and economic authority.
These theories of necessary government intervention were backed up by economists such as John Maynard Keynes, who proposed that governments were morally obligated to navigate through recessions with spending, going into debt if necessary, and manipulating prevailing interest rates. However, Henry Hazlitt described the fallacy of Keynesian economics in his must-read “Economics in One Lesson.” Hazlitt explains with, “This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only to that special group but to all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.” It clearly describes the traps Keynes and other economists fell into when endorsing government interventionism.
However, even Keynes recommended that once a recession had been successfully avoided or muted, governments should then pay attention to normalizing interest rates and paying down any debts incurred. Achieving a steady 2% growth in the economy required massive guesswork and reactive kneejerk policies. In Keynesian Economics, excessive spending was just as reprehensible as excessive saving, and both needed to be equally discouraged to manage the business cycle. The perfect balance in Keynes’ mind was just the right amount of spending. Too much private saving required government stimulus to increase spending, and too much spending required higher rates to reign in the economy.
Controlling the economy required absolute power over fiscal and monetary policy but was, in fact, an empty promise.
However, as Lord Acton once said, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And if it is true that people act in the way our environments promote them to act, how would people act with absolute power combined with zero accountability? Claiming that bad political decisions always are corrected in the election cycle may be true, but no one is suggesting creating a standard of personal responsibility for bad policy decisions. The consequences of bad policy decisions materialize long after sitting governments have retired, with the politicians enjoying a rich defined benefit pension. Meanwhile, the burden from economic damage created from policies (measured only on their altruism instead of their impact) was for the ordinary person to bear.
Instead of aggressively paying down debts in economic expansions, politicians found that a steady flow of financial stimulus won more elections and bought friends in business. Stimulus packages, even financed by debt, were seen as being harmless because any of the costs were deferred to future generations, known as intergenerational theft. The unfortunate reality was that stimulus didn’t manufacture goods and services because the spending was not sustainable. Debts (the idea you should spend more than you make) became popular. Inflation (the idea that the prices of things increases) became necessary. Central Bankers started supporting credit market liquidity through policy. They granted banking institutions the authority under law to engage in Fractional Reserve Lending (the idea that financial institutions can lend money still in chequing, savings and RSP balances instead just term deposits). Actions to soften recessions started to distort signals of the real market cycle. As banks would artificially lower their interest rates, people and businesses would be willing to increase their risk and have incentives to borrow more money than usual. This led to increased spending, and increased spending led to the illusion of prosperity, and the Central Bank would have to respond with increasing rates to slow down economic growth quickly. Instead of steady-state growth, they would be limited to being reactive or guesswork and tack back and forth like a sailboat instead of a desired straight-line motorboat approach.
The recessions of the 20th Century were all under the management of the Central Banking system.
Many European countries had established Central Banks in the 19th Century, and the US Federal Reserve was established in 1913 and the Bank of Canada in 1935. The 1929 crash was inevitable due to the expansion of bank credit and lowered interest rates in 1927 and suddenly increased them 1928. The Great Depression managed to linger from poor fiscal and monetary policies until the economy shifted into making weapons for World War II. Further crashes in the 1960s, stagflation in the 1970s into the early 1980s, stock market crashes in the late 1980s, currency and debt defaults in the 1990s were all generally amplified by the same missteps in fiscal and monetary policy. The result of each recession was increased money supply, which created inflation and increased deficit spending leading to our current state of national debts.
By the time Alan Greenspan took over as Chair of the US Federal Reserve, there was a period of stability until the late 1990s and the dramatic rise of the stock markets. In the resulting crash, the NASDAQ lost almost 80% of its value between March 2000 and October 2002. At the same time, the centre of the financial markets, New York City, suffered a horrific attack (a prototypical Black Swan event). In response, Greenspan dropped interest rates from 6.50% in October 2000 to 1% by September 2003 and left them there for too long, which distorted the ensuing rush on credit. Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) lending institutions Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae became more aggressive as rates fell and were able to put sub-prime borrowers in houses. To unload some of the risks presented by the subprime market, they bought and sold Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) in the bond market. In response to GSEs aggressively gaining market share, a feeding frenzy ensued in the financial industry. Derivatives started being used extensively as leverage to double and triple down on the expected returns. As outlined in much greater detail in the movie The Big Short, the fragility that MBS presented to the financial markets was so astronomical it eventually led to the demise of the largest bond dealer in the world, Lehman Brothers. Although certainly not limited to the actions of Greenspan, the financial crisis had its roots in the manipulation of the interest rates which provided investors and borrowers distorted signals.
In the Financial Crisis of 2008-2009, newly appointed US FED Chair Ben Bernanke called the same play Greenspan did and reduced rates to effectively 0%. He also called increasing monetary stimulus, both in terms of supporting bailouts for US corporations and expanding credit facilities in the financial system through a process called Quantitative Easing, or QE. QE is a process where a Central Bank prints new money to buy securities and the vendor of those securities deposits that newly printed money into the banking system. Once on deposit, the new money formed capital reserves for banks, and they were able to lend out multiples of the deposits held. This newly printed supply of money plus the credit leveraged against it created asset inflation in a time of recession. Although wages had not gone up, the stock market and consumer prices did. Milton Friedman described inflation as an increase in the money supply, which perfectly described what would happen next in the markets with these confusing market signals. With every round of QE, the markets reacted positively – as if the stimulus was increasing the value of the Dow Jones directly, illustrated with the attached graph. Even the major Canadian banks participated and borrowed from the US FED and sold mortgage securities to CMHC during the financial crisis to secure their ability to handle withdrawal demands and credit liquidity.
With rates at effectively zero, and $85 Billion of QE (during QE round 3) flooding the market on an ongoing basis, the stock market went on a bull run from 2009-2020. As the Central Banks started to taper off their stimulus, the markets faltered and stumbled, proving that the markets were now on government stimulus life support. While Institutional investors remained cautious, Retail investors flooded back into the market, not on fundamentals, but rather on hope and government credit. The global housing market skyrocketed, as did the majority of the worldwide stock markets. Instead of setting increased revenues aside, corporations, governments, and society started on a debt spending spree. Going into debt to give away money became popular, especially in elections. In his fustian victory speech in 2019, Justin Trudeau justified his spending decisions by saying that Canadians had “rejected cuts and austerity” after increasing the Canadian Federal Debt by $162 Billion in his first term as PM. Voters who voted against spending cuts were aware that austerity mattered. No clear explanation was provided about why deficit spending or corporate welfare spending was necessary during this time. Still, one must ask what the GDP would have been without government spending. When the government bought the Trans Canada Pipeline in 2018, that was a distorted signal given to the markets and created a cloud of uncertainty to other companies in the industry. The consequence of that action was the eventual cancellation of other significant projects, especially given the precarious nature of the oil industry under the Liberal government. Candidly, I could spend vast amounts of time levelling these same accusations against all parties of government, for they all subscribe to the same principles of interventionism and egalitarianism. As the saying goes…only the government would believe that if you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket.
Again, misguided government actions result in distorted market signals resulting in distorted market actions. But distorted actions do not lead to absolute corrections, they lead to a residual build-up of fundamental flaws in the market. When a house collapses, you don’t start building a new building on top of the debris; you should fix the problem – not the symptom of the problem. Government action constructs a new building on top of the debris, instead of sweeping it away. When the second building collapses and creates a bigger pile of debris, the failure is blamed on the policies of the previous governments, or that not enough money was allocated on those prior policies. Benevolence may be universal, but getting there is a matter of political perspective and expediency.
That leads us to what has been going on in the last 12 months.
I have stated countless times that the markets were hopelessly overvalued, that this credit-driven boom would lead to a spectacular bust. I have voiced concerns about the rise of subprime auto loans and that as of February 2019, 7 million Americans are 90 days late or more on their car payments. (Note – Bond Dealers are now packaging auto loans as bond securities and selling them to the US FED, which is increasing their balance sheets to purchase them. Will this lead to a subprime meltdown in auto loan bonds?). Mark Cuban voiced his concern about student loans back in 2014, which are now over $1.5 Trillion. The Repurchase (Repo) Market has been fuelling liquidity in the credit markets since September 30, 2019, and has gone from offering up to $75 Billion per day to banks to up to $1 Trillion per day a few times in the last ten days. The Bank of Canada announced a few days ago that they would mirror these Repo actions in the Canadian market with financing up to $5 Billion per week. CMHC has already purchased $50 Billion in mortgage securities from Canadian banks. The US has approved $2 Trillion, and Canada has approved $82 Billion in deficit spending to carry our respective economies afloat.
Layer on the $250 Trillion in consumer, mortgage, credit card, and corporate and government debt and we have a mountain of debt. Interest rates have gone to zero and could go into negative territory. According to Manulife, $36 Trillion of bonds are offering real negative yields. A barrel of Western Canadian Select oil is now worth less than the game of Barrel of Monkeys. In an interview with US FED Chair Jerome Powell, he was asked if there are limits on the power the FED has. He responded with, “Essentially the answer to your question is no; we can continue to cre- [he almost admitted to creating money] to make loans and really the point of all that is to support the flow of credit in the economy to households and businesses.” Simply put, this is a distorted market signal of massive proportions.
Keynesian Economics has no answers in times of deflation (the idea that prices will drop) other than to spend and borrow into QE infinity if required to prop up inflation that no one will eventually be able to keep up. In their philosophy, deflation is still the bigger enemy, and spending must be promoted, compared to the Austrian Economists who claimed saving was the motor of the economy. Even still, many people claim that with the amount of QE in the last 20 years, inflation has hovered around 2% annually. This, of course, is epistemologically incorrect, given the parameters given to inflation, which doesn’t include many costs experienced by everyday consumers such as food, fuel and housing. James Rickards stated in his book, “The Death of Money” that deflation is impossible to tax, and therefore deflation must be avoided at all costs. If governments and central bankers had heeded the warnings even from Keynes himself suggested to pay down debts in times of expansion and growth, they wouldn’t be as concerned with an economic collapse as they have been today.
By leaving the market alone in every previous crisis, a compounding effect could have been avoided but yet, here we are.
With grand distortions and manipulations ever since governments self-appointed their authority to borrow, and Central Banks were granted unchecked authority to control the supply of money, it has been more difficult for the average person to afford to live. Inflation, in the form of expanded credit under the guise of “stimulus,” has prevented wages from keeping up with the cost of goods and the rise of assets such as the stock market or housing. It has been increasingly difficult to find value in the investment market using technical tools and observing corporate fundamentals. Even still, investors are taking more risks knowing that government money will always flood the market. We have an economy built on the collective debris of past recessions that have made qualitative analysis almost worthless. Markets are becoming more desensitized to QE and interest rates, and their movements are too hard to predict. Assumption bias is telling us we can expect the markets to bounce back, but what evidence suggests that it will, or to what degree? Even those armed with the knowledge of the reversion to the mean theory have little left to predict.
Reconciling such theories are difficult to test or confirm and yet we demand solutions from the people who have been at the controls this whole time. All we do is all we know how to do because this is all we have been trained to think and do. As US Congressman C.L. Otter stated in 1975, “Politicians and bureaucrats in all branches and at all levels of government are using the law to accomplish incrementally the very ends that our form of government was created to prevent.” This creep of statism and egalitarianism is what John Stuart Mill called “indolence, or carelessness, or cowardice, or want of public spirit.” The way the modern financial system (certainly since the advent of the current Central Reserve Banking era) is designed to default eventually and that is the structural issue. Business cycles exaggerated by consecutive inflation and deflation are the root cause of most of our financial calamities. The system has created a series of unpayable debts, and easy money policies that promote poor business decisions and inflation that robs us of our savings and income. Governments have broken the promise of fiscal responsibility, limits on action and limits on power. We shouldn’t fear going beyond the boundaries of our limited perspective of what we think to be true. We shouldn’t be scared to return to the proper role of government to create the best environment possible to keep inflation low and restrict the growth of the money supply.
WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED ABOUT THE STATE OF THE MARKETS AND HOW TO ALLOCATE THEIR MONEY?
The awareness of the problem and digging through the confusing euphemisms will be your first step in critically thinking towards a solution.
Fiscal and Monetary policy through Central Banks and government has created the problem. We should understand that corrections and recessions are inevitable and that they are healthy. It ensures we don’t become weighed down with arrogance about our infallibility. It keeps our ego in check. We should also not act simply out of fear, as that leads us to be untrusting of others. To thrive, we must build healthy, trusting relationships in a spirit of co-operation and collaborative market activities. Fundamentally, we need to separate our money into two piles based on doing a proper budget: the money we can stand to lose, which we should call “investments” and the money we cannot afford to lose which we should call “savings.” We should never confuse the two and subject our savings to risk.
We should take our savings and secure it against taxes and secure it against loss.
My preferences in order of priority are:
1) Cash balance Tax-Free Savings Accounts
2) Specifically designed insurance contracts that reduce premiums and increase discretionary deposits directly into cash values in the form of the Infinite Banking Concept
3) In some cases, gold and silver.
Although gold and silver seem to be contrary, given their potential volatility, that is because people think about gold in reverse. In 1970, gold was priced at $35USD/oz, and today it is in the $1600-1700USD/oz range. That doesn’t mean that gold is worth that amount of dollars per ounce, but rather that dollars are worth that fraction per ounce. That is, it takes $1600 to purchase an ounce of gold whereas, in 1970, it took $35 to buy an ounce. It is not an investment that you should expect capital gains but rather a safe harbour to protect against the ever-inflating dollar. The caveat with gold is that market forces could potentially manipulate gold prices, but generally speaking, the price of gold is a reflection of dollar inflation, and if gold prices crash, you still have your hard assets. What is required is getting informed on all the options available beyond leaving your funds in a savings account, earning nothing or risking it all because stocks are “on sale.”
I have no issue with taking risks and investing in the market or gambling if that’s your preferred label, and if you are using the money allocated as “investments.” There are lots of opportunities in volatile markets and considerable upside potential. My concern is the lack of understanding and knowledge beforehand about the risks you take whenever you invest your money instead of being sold on another inevitable market correction. Do you understand how credit swaps, collateralized credit obligations, and auto loan bonds will create additional risk in your portfolio? There is still a lot of volatility in the market, and no one can accurately predict where the next moves will be. There is downside potential as much as there is upside potential. Markets are an estimate of corporate profitability, and we are a few weeks away from even hearing what Q1 earnings were. Q2 results are likely to be just as abysmal and could reflect in an extended delay in market recovery and significant losses of dividends. BMO drops more than RBC; Bell drops less than Shaw Communications. There simply isn’t enough economic data to provide any sound approach yet, so even if the markets are discounting any known risks, any investments are based on bias and gambling. Truly the basis of all financial decisions is to plan and prepare for the inescapable Black Swan events, those catastrophes that no one ever hopes for that are at the heart of the natural cycle of things despite our best efforts to avoid them. To be clear, the author of the book “The Black Swan” Nassim Nicholas Taleb has called these current market conditions a White Swan event, which are events that have clear prior warning signals well before the actual calamity takes place.
While focusing on your financial health, one must also focus on their mental, emotional and spiritual health and well being.
Health is holistic and includes many different elements. The strategies and principles of maintaining your well being translated into every area of your life. Gather experts around you that help identify weaknesses and gaps in your blind spots and address solutions. John Maxwell explains this as a balanced approach in his book “Winning With People.” John writes, “arrogance believes that no one can teach you anything, and naivety believes that a single person can teach you everything.” Learn how to develop your discernment and learn how to have many advisors to develop your critical thinking. Benjamin Franklin suggested that “If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.” Lastly, as we can also find in the Book of Proverbs, Chapter 3:13-14, “Joyful is the person who finds wisdom, the one who gains understanding. For wisdom is more profitable than silver, and her wages are better than gold.”
And of course, if you have any questions you’d like to ask, or for details on executing financial strategies for your situation, I am always ready to answer your questions.
Resources for this article:
Graph used with permission from www.sunshineprofits.com