Once you've "won the game"

[Deleted User]

Sea_Shell said:

Surely, as life can throw us major curve balls at any time (even if you've secured an annuity), you'll only ever know if you've actually "won the game" in hindsight, after you've shuffled off this mortal coil.

We can only ever be confident of "being in the lead... for now"!!

“Victory” by death is easily attainable at any time and isn’t most peoples’ idea of “won the game”.  

While guaranteed success does not exist, a high probability of having plenty in passive income is what we are discussing. Something like 99% chance of not running out and always having plenty of passive income. You do have to make certain assumptions, like that revolution won’t happen and that central banks will continue sticking to their long term inflation targets.  

To me, a couple with ~50K GBP in guaranteed lifetime income plus 1M GBP in a diversified portfolio of stocks has “won the game”. The age does not matter all that much but lets say over 50.  

The guaranteed income can be a mix of inflation protected and flat income; as one gets passed 65 its ok to let fixed income reduce somewhat in real terms because a) expenditure needs go down and b) equities are less and less likely to run out. 

As we get to higher net worth, asset allocation becomes less and less important.  Someone with 10M in equity has won the game regardless of his Fixed Income. This assumes sensible expenditure rates; I am not talking about footballers and rock stars. Equities can fall 90% and he would still get by OK. 

zagfles

MK62 said:

zagfles said:

MK62 said:

bostonerimus said:

MK62 said:

bostonerimus said:

For most people the SP is very important. While I like the egalitarian move to the new flat rate pension, for a lot of people the removal of some earnings related component has reduced the amount of SP they will get. I would be more sanguine about the new pension if it was larger. We've been asking what it means to have won this retirement thing and it's most basically in some sense having enough money to live happily until you die and SP, annuities and drawdown need to be arranged to do that best. Commercial annuities aren't very popular right now because of the low payout rates and people don't like giving up control of their pot. The best way to ensure you get a little more income in old age is to defer SP, but I wonder if we could also allow people to "buy" more SP rather than buying a commercial annuity. It could be an option offered in pension plans.

We tried the "more" SP thing with SERPS and then S2P.......for a variety of reasons they didn't really work, and were finally abandoned some years ago now.

More "base" SP would probably be a good idea imho, but worthwhile amounts would have to be paid for by large increases in NI, and politically, in the UK, that's a hard sell to the electorate at the moment (and tbh, the forseeable future imo). There has been some suggestions by various commentators in the press about making the state pension means tested at some point in the future, and while it might happen (you just never know), I think that would be a big mistake......more likely I think is the gradual push higher on state pension age, though even with that, there comes a point where it'd be counter productive to push it any higher (not that this would necessarily prevent a future govt from doing it).

Your idea about state run annuities might have some social merit (within limits)- it would remove the profit slice taken from payouts, but I very much doubt the pension industry would be keen on this, not only would it take some/much of their remaining annuity business, it might (if not limited) also start to compete with other pension offerings, and like it or not, the pension industry does employ a lot of people and generates a lot of taxable profits......

Recent UK SP reforms were about saving the Government money and sold as "simplifying" the system. Removal of SERPS, S2P etc means many people will get a far lower SP on the new system than the old and even people on old basic SP for who the new rate pension is larger lost out because other top up benefits disappeared. I'm one of the few who won from the reforms: being an expat I would have got just old basic SP and the new flat rate is quite a bit more.

I'm against means testing of SP as such "reforms" are often a prelude to the destruction of the benefit as the rich and powerful argue that they should not pay NIC etc if they get no benefit.

Under the transitional rules, your SP entitlement is calculated against both the old and new state pensions' entitlement systems....and you get the higher of the two results.......at least that's what we are being told....,..it's hard to check as the calculations appear to be shrouded in secrecy.......to be fair though, that might simply be because they are complex and hard to understand for Mr or Mrs Average, and they don't want to expend a lot of resource answering the myriad of queries they would undoubtedly get.

In my case, I appear to be on the old system, as my state pension will be quite a bit higher than the New SP of £9340.......but I don't really know if the calculation of that is accurate or not (and not having seen it, I can't say whether I'd understand it either). The bottom line is that the govt have stated that nobody should lose out either way.

As for means testing....good point, and another reason why I think introducing that would be a big mistake......too tempting for successive govts to tinker too.

It's not secret but it is quite complicated, there've been loads of long threads here discussing it in great detail.

Must have missed those.....I'll have a search when I get the time (and if I feel the urge.... )

Or as you're clearly on the old system (as you're above the new system max), google NP46 which is a detailed guide to the way the old state pension was calculated. But to do it accurately you'll have to have detailed earnings records eg monthly payslips from your whole working life, yearly totals won't do though they could give you an approximation if your pay didn't vary much.

michaels

MK62 said:

bostonerimus said:

MK62 said:

bostonerimus said:

For most people the SP is very important. While I like the egalitarian move to the new flat rate pension, for a lot of people the removal of some earnings related component has reduced the amount of SP they will get. I would be more sanguine about the new pension if it was larger. We've been asking what it means to have won this retirement thing and it's most basically in some sense having enough money to live happily until you die and SP, annuities and drawdown need to be arranged to do that best. Commercial annuities aren't very popular right now because of the low payout rates and people don't like giving up control of their pot. The best way to ensure you get a little more income in old age is to defer SP, but I wonder if we could also allow people to "buy" more SP rather than buying a commercial annuity. It could be an option offered in pension plans.

We tried the "more" SP thing with SERPS and then S2P.......for a variety of reasons they didn't really work, and were finally abandoned some years ago now.

More "base" SP would probably be a good idea imho, but worthwhile amounts would have to be paid for by large increases in NI, and politically, in the UK, that's a hard sell to the electorate at the moment (and tbh, the forseeable future imo). There has been some suggestions by various commentators in the press about making the state pension means tested at some point in the future, and while it might happen (you just never know), I think that would be a big mistake......more likely I think is the gradual push higher on state pension age, though even with that, there comes a point where it'd be counter productive to push it any higher (not that this would necessarily prevent a future govt from doing it).

Your idea about state run annuities might have some social merit (within limits)- it would remove the profit slice taken from payouts, but I very much doubt the pension industry would be keen on this, not only would it take some/much of their remaining annuity business, it might (if not limited) also start to compete with other pension offerings, and like it or not, the pension industry does employ a lot of people and generates a lot of taxable profits......

Recent UK SP reforms were about saving the Government money and sold as "simplifying" the system. Removal of SERPS, S2P etc means many people will get a far lower SP on the new system than the old and even people on old basic SP for who the new rate pension is larger lost out because other top up benefits disappeared. I'm one of the few who won from the reforms: being an expat I would have got just old basic SP and the new flat rate is quite a bit more.

I'm against means testing of SP as such "reforms" are often a prelude to the destruction of the benefit as the rich and powerful argue that they should not pay NIC etc if they get no benefit.

Under the transitional rules, your SP entitlement is calculated against both the old and new state pensions' entitlement systems....and you get the higher of the two results.......at least that's what we are being told....,..it's hard to check as the calculations appear to be shrouded in secrecy.......to be fair though, that might simply be because they are complex and hard to understand for Mr or Mrs Average, and they don't want to expend a lot of resource answering the myriad of queries they would undoubtedly get.

In my case, I appear to be on the old system, as my state pension will be quite a bit higher than the New SP of £9340.......but I don't really know if the calculation of that is accurate or not (and not having seen it, I can't say whether I'd understand it either). The bottom line is that the govt have stated that nobody should lose out either way.

As for means testing....good point, and another reason why I think introducing that would be a big mistake......too tempting for successive govts to tinker too.

I have lost out by miles, when the change came in I was just at the position with SERPS/S2P that I would get the new state pension amount - this means that all the NI contributions I have made since then and any I make going forward will earn me no more pension.

Given pensioners don't pay NI for precisely this reason, I don't see why I should.

MK62

michaels said:

MK62 said:

bostonerimus said:

MK62 said:

bostonerimus said:

For most people the SP is very important. While I like the egalitarian move to the new flat rate pension, for a lot of people the removal of some earnings related component has reduced the amount of SP they will get. I would be more sanguine about the new pension if it was larger. We've been asking what it means to have won this retirement thing and it's most basically in some sense having enough money to live happily until you die and SP, annuities and drawdown need to be arranged to do that best. Commercial annuities aren't very popular right now because of the low payout rates and people don't like giving up control of their pot. The best way to ensure you get a little more income in old age is to defer SP, but I wonder if we could also allow people to "buy" more SP rather than buying a commercial annuity. It could be an option offered in pension plans.

We tried the "more" SP thing with SERPS and then S2P.......for a variety of reasons they didn't really work, and were finally abandoned some years ago now.

More "base" SP would probably be a good idea imho, but worthwhile amounts would have to be paid for by large increases in NI, and politically, in the UK, that's a hard sell to the electorate at the moment (and tbh, the forseeable future imo). There has been some suggestions by various commentators in the press about making the state pension means tested at some point in the future, and while it might happen (you just never know), I think that would be a big mistake......more likely I think is the gradual push higher on state pension age, though even with that, there comes a point where it'd be counter productive to push it any higher (not that this would necessarily prevent a future govt from doing it).

Your idea about state run annuities might have some social merit (within limits)- it would remove the profit slice taken from payouts, but I very much doubt the pension industry would be keen on this, not only would it take some/much of their remaining annuity business, it might (if not limited) also start to compete with other pension offerings, and like it or not, the pension industry does employ a lot of people and generates a lot of taxable profits......

Recent UK SP reforms were about saving the Government money and sold as "simplifying" the system. Removal of SERPS, S2P etc means many people will get a far lower SP on the new system than the old and even people on old basic SP for who the new rate pension is larger lost out because other top up benefits disappeared. I'm one of the few who won from the reforms: being an expat I would have got just old basic SP and the new flat rate is quite a bit more.

I'm against means testing of SP as such "reforms" are often a prelude to the destruction of the benefit as the rich and powerful argue that they should not pay NIC etc if they get no benefit.

Under the transitional rules, your SP entitlement is calculated against both the old and new state pensions' entitlement systems....and you get the higher of the two results.......at least that's what we are being told....,..it's hard to check as the calculations appear to be shrouded in secrecy.......to be fair though, that might simply be because they are complex and hard to understand for Mr or Mrs Average, and they don't want to expend a lot of resource answering the myriad of queries they would undoubtedly get.

In my case, I appear to be on the old system, as my state pension will be quite a bit higher than the New SP of £9340.......but I don't really know if the calculation of that is accurate or not (and not having seen it, I can't say whether I'd understand it either). The bottom line is that the govt have stated that nobody should lose out either way.

As for means testing....good point, and another reason why I think introducing that would be a big mistake......too tempting for successive govts to tinker too.

I have lost out by miles, when the change came in I was just at the position with SERPS/S2P that I would get the new state pension amount - this means that all the NI contributions I have made since then and any I make going forward will earn me no more pension.

Given pensioners don't pay NI for precisely this reason, I don't see why I should.

Well you have to, and that's that....

jimi_man

Deleted_User said:

Sea_Shell said:

Surely, as life can throw us major curve balls at any time (even if you've secured an annuity), you'll only ever know if you've actually "won the game" in hindsight, after you've shuffled off this mortal coil.

We can only ever be confident of "being in the lead... for now"!!

“Victory” by death is easily attainable at any time and isn’t most peoples’ idea of “won the game”.  

I think Sea Shell means that you won't know if you've won until the final reckoning when you die and you can look back and assess (if you could that is) if you've had sufficient funds to deal with with everything. Which is a fair point. 

jimi_man

michaels said:

MK62 said:

bostonerimus said:

MK62 said:

bostonerimus said:

For most people the SP is very important. While I like the egalitarian move to the new flat rate pension, for a lot of people the removal of some earnings related component has reduced the amount of SP they will get. I would be more sanguine about the new pension if it was larger. We've been asking what it means to have won this retirement thing and it's most basically in some sense having enough money to live happily until you die and SP, annuities and drawdown need to be arranged to do that best. Commercial annuities aren't very popular right now because of the low payout rates and people don't like giving up control of their pot. The best way to ensure you get a little more income in old age is to defer SP, but I wonder if we could also allow people to "buy" more SP rather than buying a commercial annuity. It could be an option offered in pension plans.

We tried the "more" SP thing with SERPS and then S2P.......for a variety of reasons they didn't really work, and were finally abandoned some years ago now.

More "base" SP would probably be a good idea imho, but worthwhile amounts would have to be paid for by large increases in NI, and politically, in the UK, that's a hard sell to the electorate at the moment (and tbh, the forseeable future imo). There has been some suggestions by various commentators in the press about making the state pension means tested at some point in the future, and while it might happen (you just never know), I think that would be a big mistake......more likely I think is the gradual push higher on state pension age, though even with that, there comes a point where it'd be counter productive to push it any higher (not that this would necessarily prevent a future govt from doing it).

Your idea about state run annuities might have some social merit (within limits)- it would remove the profit slice taken from payouts, but I very much doubt the pension industry would be keen on this, not only would it take some/much of their remaining annuity business, it might (if not limited) also start to compete with other pension offerings, and like it or not, the pension industry does employ a lot of people and generates a lot of taxable profits......

Recent UK SP reforms were about saving the Government money and sold as "simplifying" the system. Removal of SERPS, S2P etc means many people will get a far lower SP on the new system than the old and even people on old basic SP for who the new rate pension is larger lost out because other top up benefits disappeared. I'm one of the few who won from the reforms: being an expat I would have got just old basic SP and the new flat rate is quite a bit more.

I'm against means testing of SP as such "reforms" are often a prelude to the destruction of the benefit as the rich and powerful argue that they should not pay NIC etc if they get no benefit.

Under the transitional rules, your SP entitlement is calculated against both the old and new state pensions' entitlement systems....and you get the higher of the two results.......at least that's what we are being told....,..it's hard to check as the calculations appear to be shrouded in secrecy.......to be fair though, that might simply be because they are complex and hard to understand for Mr or Mrs Average, and they don't want to expend a lot of resource answering the myriad of queries they would undoubtedly get.

In my case, I appear to be on the old system, as my state pension will be quite a bit higher than the New SP of £9340.......but I don't really know if the calculation of that is accurate or not (and not having seen it, I can't say whether I'd understand it either). The bottom line is that the govt have stated that nobody should lose out either way.

As for means testing....good point, and another reason why I think introducing that would be a big mistake......too tempting for successive govts to tinker too.

I have lost out by miles, when the change came in I was just at the position with SERPS/S2P that I would get the new state pension amount - this means that all the NI contributions I have made since then and any I make going forward will earn me no more pension.

Given pensioners don't pay NI for precisely this reason, I don't see why I should.

Conversely, due to my age and being contracted out all my working life, up to 2016 I was only going to get the basic SP (£120 p/w or so as was then) and all my NI payments for the last five years would have gained me nothing. The changes have meant I'm now on way to the full amount. My wife is in a similar position. 

Not meant as a gloat but more to highlight the unfairness in the system. (Clearly we aren't going to complain!)

zagfles

jimi_man said:

michaels said:

MK62 said:

bostonerimus said:

MK62 said:

bostonerimus said:

For most people the SP is very important. While I like the egalitarian move to the new flat rate pension, for a lot of people the removal of some earnings related component has reduced the amount of SP they will get. I would be more sanguine about the new pension if it was larger. We've been asking what it means to have won this retirement thing and it's most basically in some sense having enough money to live happily until you die and SP, annuities and drawdown need to be arranged to do that best. Commercial annuities aren't very popular right now because of the low payout rates and people don't like giving up control of their pot. The best way to ensure you get a little more income in old age is to defer SP, but I wonder if we could also allow people to "buy" more SP rather than buying a commercial annuity. It could be an option offered in pension plans.

We tried the "more" SP thing with SERPS and then S2P.......for a variety of reasons they didn't really work, and were finally abandoned some years ago now.

More "base" SP would probably be a good idea imho, but worthwhile amounts would have to be paid for by large increases in NI, and politically, in the UK, that's a hard sell to the electorate at the moment (and tbh, the forseeable future imo). There has been some suggestions by various commentators in the press about making the state pension means tested at some point in the future, and while it might happen (you just never know), I think that would be a big mistake......more likely I think is the gradual push higher on state pension age, though even with that, there comes a point where it'd be counter productive to push it any higher (not that this would necessarily prevent a future govt from doing it).

Your idea about state run annuities might have some social merit (within limits)- it would remove the profit slice taken from payouts, but I very much doubt the pension industry would be keen on this, not only would it take some/much of their remaining annuity business, it might (if not limited) also start to compete with other pension offerings, and like it or not, the pension industry does employ a lot of people and generates a lot of taxable profits......

Recent UK SP reforms were about saving the Government money and sold as "simplifying" the system. Removal of SERPS, S2P etc means many people will get a far lower SP on the new system than the old and even people on old basic SP for who the new rate pension is larger lost out because other top up benefits disappeared. I'm one of the few who won from the reforms: being an expat I would have got just old basic SP and the new flat rate is quite a bit more.

I'm against means testing of SP as such "reforms" are often a prelude to the destruction of the benefit as the rich and powerful argue that they should not pay NIC etc if they get no benefit.

Under the transitional rules, your SP entitlement is calculated against both the old and new state pensions' entitlement systems....and you get the higher of the two results.......at least that's what we are being told....,..it's hard to check as the calculations appear to be shrouded in secrecy.......to be fair though, that might simply be because they are complex and hard to understand for Mr or Mrs Average, and they don't want to expend a lot of resource answering the myriad of queries they would undoubtedly get.

In my case, I appear to be on the old system, as my state pension will be quite a bit higher than the New SP of £9340.......but I don't really know if the calculation of that is accurate or not (and not having seen it, I can't say whether I'd understand it either). The bottom line is that the govt have stated that nobody should lose out either way.

As for means testing....good point, and another reason why I think introducing that would be a big mistake......too tempting for successive govts to tinker too.

I have lost out by miles, when the change came in I was just at the position with SERPS/S2P that I would get the new state pension amount - this means that all the NI contributions I have made since then and any I make going forward will earn me no more pension.

Given pensioners don't pay NI for precisely this reason, I don't see why I should.

Conversely, due to my age and being contracted out all my working life, up to 2016 I was only going to get the basic SP (£120 p/w or so as was then) and all my NI payments for the last five years would have gained me nothing. The changes have meant I'm now on way to the full amount. My wife is in a similar position. 

Not meant as a gloat but more to highlight the unfairness in the system. (Clearly we aren't going to complain!)

They would have gained you something, either more NI rebates due to the contracted out pension or some S2P if contracting out had ended without the new state pension being introduced. But accrual under the new state pension is far higher, so it's definitely a gain for people in your position who've been contracted out, while those contracted in got screwed. 

Ironically nearly all those who come on here whinging about the new state pension are those who've been contracted out "I've got 35 years why aren't I getting a full new state pension", rather than those who are actually getting shafted, ie those who have 35 years contracted in and can't build further state pension. Just shows how clueless most people are about pensions!

uk1

zagfles said:

uk1 said:

Much of the comment on this and all threads is predicated on the notion that the key thing (and some seem to feel the only thing)  is to ensure that your capital and pot grows in sync or ahead of your spending once you have retired.  In other words your total value is always protected and must never drop.  That's why there is such a high-level focus by many on annuities.  This basic idea is true if you wish it to be that way.  But too many fall into the trap of not considering what many will say is a terribly risky option. 

I happen not to see it that way.  There is another option to consider and that is to treat all of your combined pots when you reach retirement as a sinking fund and that given all the clever caveats and doom assertions, your aim with your sinking fund spreadsheet is to have a zero balance when you and all those you care for given reasonable and sensible assumptions are taken care of at some point you decide will be zero observing of course a reasonable safety margin.  I know many will disagree but it is an option that when thought through might not be that daft.  The idea of ensuring that given reasonable presumptions that when you and your spouse pop your cloggs that there is enough to take care of who you want to with whatever you decide and ensure that little is left to tax is an approach that requires you to exert some clarity over what you actually want to be the outcome.  Some may actually shokingly find that they are not spending as quickly as they need in retirement to achieve the closing balance they plan if you get my drift.

When taking this approach a very few number of fortunate people may find that their challenge isn't as large as they think it is when taken from the sucked-in viewpoint that you must always have a growing fund.  And for the sake of clarity to repeat myself.  Very fall fall into this group, my point being that some are in this fortuante position without knowing so and it just makes sense to consider all strategy and tactical options.

What?? An annuity is a "sinking fund" by definition. Once in payment its current "value" is the annual payout * the number of years you have to live. Obviously you don't know the latter, but you do know it will shrink by one year every year. So its value is "sinking". When you die, and your spouse if it's a joint annuity, the value is zero. The zero balance you talk about above.

So what you're talking about is similar to an annuity ie a "sinking fund", but an annuity guarantees it, whereas drawing down from a pot however invested in cash/bonds/equities/property etc doesn't guarantee it - ie you still have to "play the game", invest and hope your investments achieve your objectives.

Do you get it now?

With an annuity, once purchased, you no longer make deposits.  It neither sinks nor increases in value each year.  With a sinking fund, you make both further deposits and further withdrawals and it can either gain or sink in value.

"Annuity and sinking fund are two types of investment options exercised by investors. Annuity is an investment that offers payments for a certain period of time as a result of a substantial sum paid up front. Investing in a sinking fund is similar to keeping aside a sum of money over a period of time to fund a capital expense in the future.  The key difference between annuity and sinking fund is that while an annuity is an account where funds are withdrawn from, a sinking fund is an account where funds are deposited."

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-annuity-and-vs-sinking-fund/

I hope this explains more clearly for you - better than I have been able to - the significant differences between a sinking fund and an annuity.

[Deleted User]

It neither sinks nor increases in value each year. 

Depends on the type of annuity. 

zagfles

uk1 said:

zagfles said:

uk1 said:

Much of the comment on this and all threads is predicated on the notion that the key thing (and some seem to feel the only thing)  is to ensure that your capital and pot grows in sync or ahead of your spending once you have retired.  In other words your total value is always protected and must never drop.  That's why there is such a high-level focus by many on annuities.  This basic idea is true if you wish it to be that way.  But too many fall into the trap of not considering what many will say is a terribly risky option. 

I happen not to see it that way.  There is another option to consider and that is to treat all of your combined pots when you reach retirement as a sinking fund and that given all the clever caveats and doom assertions, your aim with your sinking fund spreadsheet is to have a zero balance when you and all those you care for given reasonable and sensible assumptions are taken care of at some point you decide will be zero observing of course a reasonable safety margin.  I know many will disagree but it is an option that when thought through might not be that daft.  The idea of ensuring that given reasonable presumptions that when you and your spouse pop your cloggs that there is enough to take care of who you want to with whatever you decide and ensure that little is left to tax is an approach that requires you to exert some clarity over what you actually want to be the outcome.  Some may actually shokingly find that they are not spending as quickly as they need in retirement to achieve the closing balance they plan if you get my drift.

When taking this approach a very few number of fortunate people may find that their challenge isn't as large as they think it is when taken from the sucked-in viewpoint that you must always have a growing fund.  And for the sake of clarity to repeat myself.  Very fall fall into this group, my point being that some are in this fortuante position without knowing so and it just makes sense to consider all strategy and tactical options.

What?? An annuity is a "sinking fund" by definition. Once in payment its current "value" is the annual payout * the number of years you have to live. Obviously you don't know the latter, but you do know it will shrink by one year every year. So its value is "sinking". When you die, and your spouse if it's a joint annuity, the value is zero. The zero balance you talk about above.

So what you're talking about is similar to an annuity ie a "sinking fund", but an annuity guarantees it, whereas drawing down from a pot however invested in cash/bonds/equities/property etc doesn't guarantee it - ie you still have to "play the game", invest and hope your investments achieve your objectives.

Do you get it now?

With an annuity, once purchased, you no longer make deposits.  It neither sinks nor increases in value each year.  With a sinking fund, you make both further deposits and further withdrawals and it can either gain or sink in value.

"Annuity and sinking fund are two types of investment options exercised by investors. Annuity is an investment that offers payments for a certain period of time as a result of a substantial sum paid up front. Investing in a sinking fund is similar to keeping aside a sum of money over a period of time to fund a capital expense in the future.  The key difference between annuity and sinking fund is that while an annuity is an account where funds are withdrawn from, a sinking fund is an account where funds are deposited."

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-annuity-and-vs-sinking-fund/

I hope this explains more clearly for you - better than I have been able to - the significant differences between a sinking fund and an annuity.

Of course an annuity sinks in value, an annuity paying £10k a year for life is obviously worth more for someone with more expected years of life, so its capital value reduces as you age, until you die when it's value is zero. Just like your aim with the a "sinking fund", like you said: "...your aim with your sinking fund spreadsheet is to have a zero balance when you and all those you care for given reasonable and sensible assumptions are taken care of..."

So the aim is the same, but with a "sinking fund" you're "playing the game", ie taking a risk, with an annuity you're not.