60/40 [Asset allocation]

Have a question about your personal investments? No matter how simple or complex, you can ask it here.
Post Reply
Topic Author
curo
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:53 pm

60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by curo »

is the the 60/40 mix dead?
dcabler
Posts: 4541
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:30 am
Location: TX

Re: 60/40

Post by dcabler »

curo wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:57 am is the the 60/40 mix dead?
Nobody knows the future. Can you elaborate as to why you're asking this question?

Cheers.
Silk McCue
Posts: 8951
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:11 pm

Re: 60/40

Post by Silk McCue »

No. Yes. Maybe.

Of course it isn’t dead. It’s just an asset allocation.

The search box shows multiple threads on this topic. Search for “Is 60 40 dead”

Cheers
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: 60/40

Post by burritoLover »

There is no portfolio in the history of man that hasn't gone through periods of poor performance relative to other portfolios.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: 60/40

Post by nisiprius »

They have been saying so since 2009 or probably earlier. "They" tends to be people who have an obvious self-interest in promoting something else. (Often they are promoting the use of alternatives). A common sales technique to shake a client who wants to stick to something plain vanilla is not to contradict the client directly, but to say "that used to work great, and you must be a really smart person (and attractive) to know about it--but that doesn't work any more."

Exactly when did it supposedly "die?"

On May 29, 2009, a poster in this forum started a thread, Portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds "is dead."

Meanwhile, here is how some 60/40 portfolios have performed since May, 2009.
Source

Image

Since being declared "dead," every one of them would at least have tripled your money.

Admittedly it's an active fund and the allocation has varied... but the Wellington Fund has been roughly 60/40 since inception in 1929. And it has never held anything but stocks and bonds. And it is kind of fun to plot it. Look at the overall history of the fund, and tell me if you can pick out an approximate time frame when it "died." Looks pretty healthy. I don't see any signs of "death" within the last forty years, anyway.

Source

Image
Last edited by nisiprius on Wed May 25, 2022 7:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: 60/40

Post by dbr »

Silk McCue wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:13 am No. Yes. Maybe.

Of course it isn’t dead. It’s just an asset allocation.

The search box shows multiple threads on this topic. Search for “Is 60 40 dead”

Cheers
I will repeat this to be sure it is not missed.

Of course it isn't dead. It's just an asset allocation.

Maybe someone has made mentions of try 60/40 for this or 60/40 for that as some kind of a blessing. But it isn't. It's just an asset allocation and it has whatever properties it presents, which may or may not be helpful to any investor in particular.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95686
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by LadyGeek »

I retitled the thread for clarity.

curo - I assume you are asking this question to help with your portfolio.

May I suggest you post your portfolio information in this thread using the Asking Portfolio Questions format? It will make you think about the "big picture" while giving us the information we need to point you in the right direction.

If you have any questions, ask them here.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
ruralavalon
Posts: 26351
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:29 am
Location: Illinois

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by ruralavalon »

curo wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:57 am is the the 60/40 mix dead?
Of course not. We currently use a 60/40 asset allocation, investing in Vanguard Balanced Index Fund (VBIAX).

60/40, 1993-2022, Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) = 8.08%.
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein | Wiki article link: Bogleheads® investment philosophy
User avatar
BrooklynInvest
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:23 am

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by BrooklynInvest »

I hope it's not dead - it's got all my money.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by Marseille07 »

If 2022 looks like 1966~1970 then 60/40 would not do very well for the next decade or so.
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15080
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

60/40 is dead?

long live 60/40:

Image
reports of my death are greatly exaggerated--60/40 asset allocation
60/40 is dead just like:

equities are dead:
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... f+equities
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by nisiprius »

So I now have done the spreadsheet work for a chart of the performance of a hypothetical portfolio of 60% "large company stocks" and 40% "intermediate-term government bonds," using the Ibbotson SBBI data series... so this is like Wellington but without active management, just a straight 60/40, rebalanced monthly. I chose to use the intermediate-term series rather than the long-term series because it is closer in behavior to the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund, often recommended here as part of a three-fund portfolio.

Again: if it is "dead," in about what year did it "die?"

Image
Last edited by nisiprius on Thu May 26, 2022 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
LilyFleur
Posts: 3499
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:36 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by LilyFleur »

Some here are tweaking it somewhat.

In 2020, I moved from 40% bond market index fund to 20% stable value fund with 20% bond market index fund. It worked out well, as my part-time job ended recently, and I will be able to withdraw from the stable value fund while I wait for the stock index fund and the bond index fund to move up again.

Of course it's not keeping up with inflation, so I'm trying to be careful with my spending.
abc132
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:11 am

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by abc132 »

Long term returns are driven by stocks, so the 60/40 portfolio will do fine in most any environment. If you think a 90% crash is coming without much of a recovery, you have no other option other than to save up 40x+ years of expenses with at least 30 of them in TIPS.

Some portfolio will backtest well 30 years from now, but it is very unlikely to be the portfolios that backtest the best right now. It will somehow be "obvious" that 10% midcap value and 5% pork futures was the portfolio destined to provide greater stability and equivalent returns. Oh ya, and only international pork futures - they do better...
User avatar
tennisplyr
Posts: 3703
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:53 pm
Location: Sarasota, FL

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by tennisplyr »

You have to define dead…if it’s going in a downward direction it is not dead.
“Those who move forward with a happy spirit will find that things always work out.” -Retired 13 years 😀
sycamore
Posts: 6359
Joined: Tue May 08, 2018 12:06 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by sycamore »

curo wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:57 am is the the 60/40 mix dead?
I wonder about the assumptions behind these sorts of questions. It's as if "60/40" is perceived as some kind of universal portfolio appropriate for all kinds of people.

But it's not like the investing Titans who created stocks & bonds from the earth also laid down a law to us mere mortals: "Thou shalt use 60/40. Thou shalt not use 53/47, nor use 63/37."

Asking "is the 60/40 mix dead?" neglects the key Boglehead idea of choosing your AA based on your personal risk tolerance. So here's a better way to ask the question: "Is the 60/40 mix still appropriate for a person whose ability, willingness, and need to take risk previously indicated using an AA of 60/40?"

I think the answer is yes. While there's a lot of market uncertainty and volatility (not new!), and while expected returns for stocks & bonds are lower now than, say, a decade ago, that doesn't mean you need to bump up your 60/40 AA to 90/10.

First, it's okay to delay rebalancing so that stocks run up to 65%. It really won't matter much, and maybe it's good enough. Second, if lower expected returns means that you now have a much higher need to take risk, then okay... decide on a higher stock allocation knowing what the risks are. And be prepared to implement plan B -- work longer, save more, reduce expenses.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by nisiprius »

I updated the chart above to include date through 4/30/2022. It doesn't actually make it look very different, though.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
livesoft
Posts: 86075
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by livesoft »

curo wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:57 am is the the 60/40 mix dead?
It is no more dead than any other asset allocation.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
lostcoast
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:53 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by lostcoast »

It ain't dead until I'm dead :D
User avatar
Gort
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Texas

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by Gort »

curo wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:57 am is the the 60/40 mix dead?
You might get different answers if you ask a 70 year old person vs a 30 year old person.
Robot Monster
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 11:23 am

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by Robot Monster »

Jeremy Siegel, from "Episode 72 of The Investopedia Express with Caleb Silver (Feb. 7, 2022)" Investopedia link
I am writing right now the sixth edition of my book, Stocks for the Long Run, and a whole big section on the 60/40 portfolio and whether it is still right. And if you look at the evidence, it is not sufficient. In fact, and it was really surprising myself. I did that Monte Carlo simulations of retirement portfolios, which is often the 60/40. And it turns out that with today's forward-looking stock and bond returns... and I was really even pessimistic about bonds, giving them a 4.5% real rate of return, which is 2.5% below its long run average. But we know that bonds are going to have negative real rate rates of return. I mean, we we see that in the text. It turns out that the probability of running out of money where a given rate of withdrawal is actually 80–100% stocks. You minimize that probability, and always by going more towards bonds, the income is so poor that the probability that you're going to run out of money is actually higher. And so with a low rate world going forward, and I do think stock and bond returns are going to be lower than their historical average, it turns out you need more stocks in your portfolio, not less, if you want to achieve a certain withdrawal plan."
User avatar
burritoLover
Posts: 4097
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by burritoLover »

Robot Monster wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 11:22 am Jeremy Siegel, from "Episode 72 of The Investopedia Express with Caleb Silver (Feb. 7, 2022)" Investopedia link
I am writing right now the sixth edition of my book, Stocks for the Long Run, and a whole big section on the 60/40 portfolio and whether it is still right. And if you look at the evidence, it is not sufficient. In fact, and it was really surprising myself. I did that Monte Carlo simulations of retirement portfolios, which is often the 60/40. And it turns out that with today's forward-looking stock and bond returns... and I was really even pessimistic about bonds, giving them a 4.5% real rate of return, which is 2.5% below its long run average. But we know that bonds are going to have negative real rate rates of return. I mean, we we see that in the text. It turns out that the probability of running out of money where a given rate of withdrawal is actually 80–100% stocks. You minimize that probability, and always by going more towards bonds, the income is so poor that the probability that you're going to run out of money is actually higher. And so with a low rate world going forward, and I do think stock and bond returns are going to be lower than their historical average, it turns out you need more stocks in your portfolio, not less, if you want to achieve a certain withdrawal plan."
Jeremy Siegel, the guy that at one point pushed "one-decision" hold-forever nifty-fifty stocks?
User avatar
RetirementClass2021
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2022 6:34 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by RetirementClass2021 »

curo wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:57 am is the the 60/40 mix dead?
If it is dead then my retirement portfolio is a ghost of 60/40 allocation past. Thanks for the heads up.

Now I may have to sleep with the light on. :shock:
VTI 52% VXUS 13% BND 10.5% BNDX 7% SCHP 17.5% | Globally diversified low-cost passive index fund portfolio | “Forget the needle, buy the haystack.” - John C. Bogle
User avatar
windaar
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:31 am

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by windaar »

I'm at 40/60 due to time to retirement and realistic risk assessment. There is no rule, just a thoughtful decision based on a dozen variables. One's AA will probably evolve during one's life. The only true "set and forget" is probably 50/50 which served my Dad's generation well and which would probably serve many today well.
Nobody knows nothing.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by nisiprius »

Robot Monster wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 11:22 am Jeremy Siegel, from "Episode 72 of The Investopedia Express with Caleb Silver (Feb. 7, 2022)" Investopedia link...
...I was really even pessimistic about bonds, giving them a 4.5% real rate of return, which is 2.5% below its long run average...
...
:?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
The insight is that if you make "really pessimistic" predictions about bonds, it follows that best performance will be obtained with a higher stock allocation?
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
placeholder
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by placeholder »

LilyFleur wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:07 pm In 2020, I moved from 40% bond market index fund to 20% stable value fund with 20% bond market index fund.
I consider that to still be 60/40 as stable value is just a form of fixed income to me and in fact I've used 50/50 bond index and stable value from the start of my portfolio in 2007 and I have been 60/40 since 2011 or so.
rossington
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:00 am
Location: Florida

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by rossington »

Those "experts" that say the 60/40 portfolio is dead are not paid to recommend passive investing. Set it and forget it is taboo.
"Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill.
User avatar
Wiggums
Posts: 7050
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:02 am

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by Wiggums »

curo wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:57 am is the the 60/40 mix dead?
I heard a guest on Bloomberg tv say that 60/40 was dead. Stay the course. Our AA is 65/35.

Both stocks and bonds are taking a beating now. Bond duration is really important concept to understand.
"I started with nothing and I still have most of it left."
Gauntlet
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:06 am

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by Gauntlet »

I'm a 60/40 person. The irony is that 6 months ago my 60/40 was not looking good (dead?). Sure my portfolio was at an all time high but stocks had gone up and up for 10 years and my bonds were yielding a low 1.25%. Now? Well, 60/40 is looking better. Stocks have come back down to earth and my bonds are yielding 3.5%. Personally, I feel better about the old 60/40 today than I did in 2022.
Tamalak
Posts: 1988
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 2:29 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by Tamalak »

Gauntlet wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 7:58 am I'm a 60/40 person. The irony is that 6 months ago my 60/40 was not looking good (dead?). Sure my portfolio was at an all time high but stocks had gone up and up for 10 years and my bonds were yielding a low 1.25%. Now? Well, 60/40 is looking better. Stocks have come back down to earth and my bonds are yielding 3.5%. Personally, I feel better about the old 60/40 today than I did in 2022.
Yeah. And in retrospect 60/40 was not dead 6 months ago. We just KNEW bond performance would be poor, and didn't know what stock performance would be. Now we know stock performance is even worse. 60/40 has come out of this looking pretty good.
User avatar
Charles Joseph
Posts: 2394
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2022 10:49 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by Charles Joseph »

60/40 is dead to me.

I'm not willing to lose 30% of my savings in a crash.

30/70ish to 40/60ish has (obviously) much less volatility and a higher risk-adjusted return. I think I'm 36/64 right about now.

Relying on the speculative aspect of the stock market for a significant amount of retirement savings is playing with fire, in my opinion.
"The big money is not in the buying and selling, but in the waiting." - Charles Munger
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95686
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by LadyGeek »

If anyone is interested to provide their opinion of the 60/40 portfolio with a reporter, see: Reporter doing podcast on 60/40 portfolio.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
Candor
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 4:25 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by Candor »

"60/40 is dead" makes good copy.
The fool, with all his other faults, has this also - he is always getting ready to live. - Seneca Epistles < c. 65AD
lws
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:12 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by lws »

As said before: "ability, willingness, and need to take risk"
My AA depends on me.
Your AA depends on you.
AlwaysLearningMore
Posts: 1934
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:29 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by AlwaysLearningMore »

Years ago spouse and I were at a Manhattan hotel bar where they filmed an after-trading hours TV show (Bulls and Bears at the Waldorf?). The day we were there Dick Cavett was there at a table. One random interviewee was a young Wall Streeter who confidently stated "buy and hold is dead."

OP, why do you think 60/40 may be dead? What was the cause of death?
Retirement is best when you have a lot to live on, and a lot to live for. * None of what I post is investment advice.* | FIRE'd July 2023
chassis
Posts: 2182
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:28 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by chassis »

The 40 of 60/40 is dead. Reason: rising rates.

Dalio, Miller, Gross and others agree. Bonds are dead.

iBonds are nice though. Cash and HYSA are nice. I like equities but I'm standing on the sidelines now.
texasdiver
Posts: 3937
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:50 am
Location: Vancouver WA

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by texasdiver »

When I hear people say this sort of thing I always ask "what is the alternative" and it usually ends up being:

Crypto
Real estate trusts
SPACs
Private equities
Precious metals
Hedge funds

And God only knows what else.

I'll stick with my 60/40 thank you very much. Although in my case, a large portion of our 40 is invested in the Federal TSP G-Fund and my wife's Cash Balance plan and not traditional bond funds. So for us the 40 is more fixed income rather than bonds.
placeholder
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by placeholder »

texasdiver wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 9:13 pm When I hear people say this sort of thing I always ask "what is the alternative"
Stable value to an extent.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by Marseille07 »

chassis wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 9:02 pm The 40 of 60/40 is dead. Reason: rising rates.

Dalio, Miller, Gross and others agree. Bonds are dead.

iBonds are nice though. Cash and HYSA are nice. I like equities but I'm standing on the sidelines now.
Investors also dislike stocks whenever the Fed hikes. These days we see the markets going up and down on 50 bps or 75 bps or 100 bps next.

I'm not saying equities or bonds are dead, but we might be in for a rough ride until the Fed's done hiking.
yules
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:31 am

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by yules »

curo wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:57 am is the the 60/40 mix dead?
search this forum, there are innumerable thread on this.
User avatar
Beensabu
Posts: 5657
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 3:22 pm

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by Beensabu »

When they say something is dead, that's your notice that it's kind of sucked lately (if you hadn't noticed already) and will soon show itself to still be alive (with or without you). Not immediately, of course. But a few years down the line. That's how it goes.

Stay the course. Keep investing. Don't panic. The usual.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: 60/40 [Asset allocation]

Post by nisiprius »

chassis wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 9:02 pm The 40 of 60/40 is dead. Reason: rising rates.

Dalio, Miller, Gross and others agree. Bonds are dead.

iBonds are nice though. Cash and HYSA are nice. I like equities but I'm standing on the sidelines now.
In 2014, Ray Dalio said to Tony Robbins that he would give Robbins
"...a sample portfolio that the average person could implement.” And then slowly he began to unfold the exact sequence for what his experience shows will give you and me the increased probability of the highest return in any market environment, as long as we live, with the least amount of risk.
That portfolio, the "All-Seasons Portfolio," was 55% bonds. But in 2021, who had given Robbins a portfolio good for "as long as we live," began to say that owning bonds was "pretty stupid," and as far as I know has never told investors in the All-Seasons Portfolio what they were supposed to do now.

The high-bond strategy used in his "All-Weather" hedge fund was described in 2012 thus:
After decades of study Ray, Bob, Greg Jensen, Dan Bernstein and others at Bridgewater created an investment strategy structured to be indifferent to shifts in discounted economic conditions... this was the best portfolio Ray and his close associates could build without any requirement to predict future conditions.
The timeless, prediction-free strategy based on decades of study of economic history had a shelf life of less than a decade.

Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust, after beating the S&P 500 for fifteen consecutive years, lost so much so quickly that it reversed and lost all of the previous outperformance in just three years.

Image

Bill Gross' Janus Unconstrained Bond Fund, during the time he was managing it, averaged 0.43%/year while the dead-simple Vanguard Total Bond Market Index made five times as much.

Image

These people are not my heroes, and I don't think they have been particularly prescient.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Post Reply