"All money in cash/stable value fund"
or "Depression might start tomorrow" strategy

1. Introduction
2. Popular 401K investors delusions
3. Fashionable mutual funds mix
4. Follow the leader
5. Naive siegelism
6. "Financial alchemist" strategy
7. Stable value only or "Depression might start tomorrow" strategy.
8. Bonds-based strategy
9. "Gold always shines bright"  and "Commodities rulez" strategies
10. Lifecycle strategies
11. Economic cycle based market timing
12. Combination of lifetime strategies with market timing.
13. Conclusions
14. Webliography
15. Old News

This is essentially the strategy opposite to Naive Siegelism and the key idea "put all your money in a money market/stable value fund" is also very simple, attractive and wrong. Its main advantage is peace of mind and the ability more or less precisely know the value of 401K many years ahead up to retirement.  Cash of course is a king, but king reign usually doe snot last long and often ends with the assassination ;-). 

It is important to understand that ultraconservative position (money under mattress, or modern equivalent of this in the form of stable value fund) has its own risks due to weak protection from inflation and some amount of TIPs, gold and short term bonds probably should complement this strategy well.  Because you do not know and can't know the level of future inflation ultraconservatism is a bad advisor. We need to understand several basic facts about depression to guide us to the right allocation:

• Depression is not about government collapse althouth government collapse can induce depression like happen after the dissolution of the USSR. It's mainly about job market collapse. So stable and/or growing high unemployment is the litmus test that shows whether this is a recession or depression. Based on this test it looks more like a new Depression, then Great Recession.  
• Deflation not inflation is the main theme during depression, but turn deflation into inflation can be pretty fast if confidence disappear.
• Fiat currency will behave differently during depression then the currency based on gold. Internalization of markets create its own complex currency dynamics, especially for dollar which can be supported despite dismal financial situation in the USA. 
• If this Great Recession in actually a new depression, then one thing is clear: this will be the first depression under fiat currency regime. As such this is a  completely uncharted territory (and that makes huge difference  between Helicopter Ben famous object of study and reality)
• The level of government intervention into financial sector today surpass what was possible under Roosevelt administration by at least an order of magnitude. In other words government is bend on saving financial sector at all costs.
• Unamployment is frowing and structural. Cowardness of the current administration in espablishing direct job creation programs make it even worth.
• Housing probably will decline for another 5-10 years althouth in some markets turnaround can be qwuicker than that. 

It is true that during real depression cash is the king. After all you lose you job abd it take years to find a new one. So the less leveraged you are the better are your chances of survival.

And, if the previous depression is a template, you saving in the bank are vulnerable. Ino old time it was run on a bank. In new times it might be a run on a dollar. So savings are real saving only if you can get your savings from the bank. That means that some part of savings can (and probably should) be converted into gold if changes of depression are high. Gold and silver, not cash are the store of value during the depression under fiat regime. But it is important to understand that even in dire circumstances of early 2009 it is not clear whether the situation will deteriorate to full scale depression.

It is yet unclear how 2008 economic difficulties will resolve themselves and whether all 2009 will be as bleak as 2008.  Moreover depression is somewhat subjective notion: "It is a recession when your neighbor lose the job as saying "it is a depression when you lose the job" suggests.

The key point is that a small doze of other investments can enhance returns on your stable value holdings without violating peace of mind and the level of your protection against depression. I will not talk too much about gold as it is usually not available in 401K plans (but can and should be used in Roth plans). In any case you can find plenty of advice about gold on the Internet. But I would like to make a point that cash (as in stable value funds or CDs) are a good place to park your money, but only in moderation. In January 2008 Vanguard stable value fund returned approximately 3.6% (annualized). That's probably close to the current level of  inflation.  And it is not clear whether there will be a sharp spike of inflation, but it is a possibility. that's why gold and TIPs are important diversifiers, if used in moderation. 

At the same time I would be the last to argue that peace of mind is not a valuable dividend (look at my efforts to write those pages, which were triggered by losses during dot-com bust ;-).  

The discussion below I will make the following assumptions which might be realistic or not:

• Government will survive in any circumstances
• Government will be able to protect at least stable value funds from collapse.
• Government will be able to pay interest of its obligations (especially TIPs) although the level of compensation for inflation can vary greatly.
• Government will avoid direct confiscation of gold and other precious metals a la Roosevelt administration.

If we assume that those assumption are true using stable value fund to park a substantial portion of your 401K savings has several undeniable advantages:

• You still get a tax relief despite taking very little risk (including the currency risk) as the environment is generally deflationary not inflationary.   This is a pretty rare case. Government usually gives tax relief  only in cases when it can get money back via inflation :-)
• Stable value fund outperformed S&P500 for the last 10 years by a significant margin (see below).
• You get your company match (say, 4% of salary) which can be counted as a return on investment too. And 8% return is nothing to sneeze about.
• You are completely protected from idiotic fund managers  bestowed on you by your company. Like Vanguard Prime Cap which walked into dot-com bubble fully loaded with technological companies. Or, for a change, from idiots who manage in Vanguard Winsor II which walked at the current financial turmoil overloaded with financial stocks. Many other fund managers are in the same boat and value funds destroy value almost equally well as regular funds. International funds can do it even better.  Also the games fund managers play with "other people money" are irrelevant for stable value holders.
• Wall Street in XXI century became by-and-large parasitic organization. Using stable value fund you avoid paying Wall Street tax which is paid in full by stock funds and to some extent bond funds investors (for example 0.5% changed by PIMCO Total Return translates into more then 10% of average annual return tax).  Again we all need to understand that 401K investors are more correctly should be called 401K donors.  Just think that 6 billions Merrill Lynch brass pocketed in 2008. those funds were stolen from regular investors (via TARP fund) as well as company-managed 401K plans (Merrill Lynch manages 401K account for Wall Mart and several other large companies).  And they are not eager to return their bonuses and join Greedaholics Anonymous club. 
• Look at what happened to people who used "all money in stocks" (Naive Siegelism ) strategy in 401K accounts. It's not a pretty picture.  In November 2008 when chickens came home to roost they were down 40% or more.  It's not pretty: they paid for Wall Street excesses and God knows when and if and when they get their losses back...

There is an additional incentive to adopt this strategy is the your organization uses for 401K bond and stock funds with high expense rations (Wal Mart 401K plans are one such example, they use horrible and expensive Merrill Lynch funds; see Some stock funds can't even outperform lowly T-bills ):

You'd be amazed at how much work it can take to make a stock portfolio give T-bill returns — and how many funds have managed to make the leap from the merely mediocre to the truly dreadful.

A basic tenet of investing is that, over the long term, stocks tend to return more than bonds or T-bills. The past 10 years have borne this out.

• T-bills have gained an average 3.7% a year from November 1997 through November 2007, assuming you reinvested your interest.

• The Lehman Bros. U.S. Aggregate Bond index, a broad measure of the bond market, has returned an average 6.1% a year the same period.

• The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 index, which measures the returns from virtually the entire stock market, has risen an average 6.6%.

For individuals who can fund their retirement with just contributions and stable value returns worth more than a high return:  the ability to sleep at night is priceless.  And this is not just a metaphor. As CNN reported pm Oct 28, 2008 (Money worries rob workers of sleep, study shows):

Nine of 10 American workers are losing sleep over financial worries, according to a survey released Monday by a company that helps workers deal with wellness issues.

Thirty percent of respondents reported worrying about the cost of living while 29 percent cited credit-card debt.

Keeping up with the rising cost of living and credit card debt were top concerns preventing people from falling asleep, according to the results from ComPsych Corporation, which surveyed employees of companies it serves. Thirty percent of respondents reported worrying about the cost of living while 29 percent cited credit-card debt.

Making mortgage payments and building retirement accounts also kept people awake, with 14 percent and 13 percent, respectively, listing those as their main concerns, the survey said.

How to afford childrens' school tuition and health care costs robbed just three percent of sleep, the survey said.

Only eight percent of respondents said they are not worried and have no trouble sleeping.

The study was compiled and released by ComPsych Corporation, which contracts with companies to provide employee assistance programs.

"As the largest EAP, our increased call volume has been a reflection of the financial stressors faced by U.S. employees," said Richard Chaifetz, ComPsych's chief executive officer.

According to Vanguard approximately 13% of participants in 401K plan had their entire accounts in fixed-income securities.  Money market (stable value) funds are definitely preferable to bond funds if yields are less then 5%.  They also preferable in time of financial crisis. You can see what happened with bond funds in October 2008;  even short term bond funds posted losses close to 10% (for example Vanguard Investment Grade Intermediate fund lost 6.5% or so).  

There is some theoretical justification of this strategy: The fundamental cause of any credit crisis is that risk and reward became disconnected. And that can be true not only for stocks but for bonds too. If yields before the crisis are too low (as they were in 2006-2007), corporate bonds can be decimated too. For example LQD, a popular ETF that invests in investment grade bonds in 2008 at one point lost 30% (yes, thirty percent) of its value dropping from 107 to 81.70. 

Also people who from Jan 1, 2006 contributed (using cost averaging) all their 401K contribution to stable value fund has had on Oct 27, 2008 65% more money then people who who used cost averaging to contribute all their money to S&P500 based fund (assuming Vanguard stable value fund and 2.5% yearly increase in salary for each calendar year). Just think about it: 65% less money...  OK, this was so far the worst day in 2008 but still...  

But it is clear that inflation protection matters and even is situations close to start of the depression (like in beginning of 2009) this strategy can be enhanced by investing a  small amount  (let's say up to 10%) in other instruments, which slightly increases protection from inflation without substantial increase of risk (assuming 50% decline in case of 10% investment you will get 5% decline of the total; in case of 20% investment it can be up to  10% decline). 

Obvious candidates are TIPs. risk that you lose your TIPs investment are even less then the risk that you lose your stable value fund investment.  And returns are pretty similar in low inflation periods. But quite different in high inflation periods. The problem here is that we can run multi-year deflationary period, but with small invesnted amount it matter much less then if you put all 100% into TIPs.

Other possibilities are  junk bonds and stocks (if bought at low points like November 2008; same thinking is applicable to junk bonds; never buy either stocks or junk bonds using cost averaging). It's enough to invest say 10% in TIPs and say 3-5% in  junk bond or stocks to get some protection from inflation and increase returns without significantly increasing risk.

Again the key recommendation is not to do cost averaging for stocks or junk bonds but patiently wait for the multiyear low and only then invest when dividends for  S&P500 are close to dividends of stable value fund (for example when S&P500 returns approximately 3.5% or more). And you should be ready to sell them if there is some "surprise rally" which bring you 10% or more return in less then a year.

In any cases above 5% any investment increase the risk dramatically as most people cannot afford to lose money in 401K accounts and there no guarantee that the year of your retirement cannot be replica of 2008.

• TIPs is small dozes (say, up to 10%-20%) can  be a  good and safe complement for stable value providing slightly higher returns and opportunity to trade them once a year without violating rules of particular 401K plan. That key here is not to be in a hurry and buy them only on dips and sell on rallies (you need to be patient as fisherman: once in three-five years TIPS have really large down movements, like happened in 2008). The most important is to understand that in no way you should exceed a given limit and resist inclination of becoming  a greedy yield hog (remember that bulls can make money, bears can make money, pigs never can) and rush for additional 50 beeps of total return.  If you select this strategy you essentially decided that "peace of mind" comes before returns posture and it is unwise to betray this strategic decision.
• Junk bonds in very small doses (3-5%) are also can be considered to be a valuable addition but remember that they are as volatile as stocks and you need to buy them only at deep discount to make then worth the risk they represent. Still like medicine in very small dozes (let's say 5% or less) they like TIPS tend to  increase 10 years returns with only minimal increase of risk if you are patient enough to buy them on multiyear dips, say 10% or more decline from 1000 days average.  But junk bonds returns depends whether those companies that are behind them die like fly on the frost in severe recession or survive;  I watch only Vanguard High Yield fund and hope that most components of this fund survive the current slump. But 2009-2010 definitely will provide an interesting field test for this hypothesis. Anyway 401K investors were put in a very risk situation by the mere fact of off-loading all risks from the corporation and it does not make sense to play with the small amount of money you can save for retirement.  Remember that stock market always moves is such way that the smallest number of people can benefit from it; 401K donors do not belong to this selected group.
• Stocks funds can be considered only at multiyear dips (no "cost averaging" please) although they are more questionable in the current circumstances.  You should not even worry about stocks in "normal times" as they are just too risky. Investing of just 5% in diversified stock index on multiyear dip has the advantage as shopping on Black Friday: you get nice discount for the same thing. so it make sense to wait a year, two or even three. In no way you need to buy stocks on a regular basis: you need to wait for a crashes like the one in October 2002 or October 2007 and pick 1% or so really cheap. Just don't be greedy and remember that you do not need to wait for exact bottom 25% discount from the 1000 days average is enough.  OK, you by buying in October missed carnage with lower bottom in November 2008 but still discount of, say,  25% (for S&P500) is nothing to fret about. It is a good deal and it is true both about Sony HDTV purchase and S&P500.  Why pay $150 per share of SPY if once in five years or so you can pick up those share for $80 or less. Then you can wait for a couple of years and sell it for $130 or so as they are not principal for your investment strategy (please no stocks in long run nonsense -- see ) . Even if there will be no recovery you still risk 5% or less of your holdings and with 50% decline you will lose less then 2.5%.

  But stocks might be faded asset class after the current crisis and returns might suffer for a decade or so like was the case with Japanese stocks.  Just, please, do not be greedy, do not pull the trigger buying all 5% at the point you consider "deep dip",  buy them in small chunks of, say, 1% ("cost averaging on dips", so to speak ;-). A good timing is impossible and if you bought S&P500 for say $86 on October 24 (which is a good price based on proposed S&P500 metric of 25% decline from 1000 days average) that does not means that it cannot be, say,  $75 later the same month or next month (actually in this case in November 2008: the lowest point was $74.34).

The main danger of "everything in stable value" strategy is not leaving all the money in stable value account. It is the danger of abandoning the strategy in good years in usually counterproductive attempts to increase returns ("greed effect" is fully applicable to stable value investing too -- the lure of bonds with higher returns (say 5% vs 3.6% in stable value fund)  and stocks after 20% of annual return can be too much to resist ;-).

This often happens if stocks produce spectacular returns and the "cash only" investor start moving money to more risky investments due to greed.  Unfortunately period of very low stable value fund returns are usually  the worst periods for moving money to bond funds as yields are low and risk is very high.  Especially dangerous are  junk bonds which actually behave like stock and can crash 50% or more. 

Usually people move funds from stable value when stable value fund returns became really miserable. But this is a really bad (completely wrong) time as bonds are overvalued at this moment and, for example, the yield spread between junk and high quality usually becomes very narrow.  That means taking disproportionate amounts of risk and this is a huge costly mistake that costs some people up to 30% of their 401K saving. For example Vanguard High Yield fond is a toast as of November 2008, dropping from   $6.30 to 3.92. Such a drop means that you might recover your money with "stable value" interest (let's say 4%) only in a decade or so ( bonds usually have 5-7 years to maturity in this fund). 

Summary

We probably should respect those people who are afraid of depression and use "all stable value"  strategy but they might consider amending it by adding small percentage of TIPS and even smaller percentage of stocks and junk bonds. There are at least three advantages of this strategy:

• 401K investors that predominantly use stable value funds just refused to play in the Wall Street casino (with CNBC clowns at the entrance) and enrich brokers. As in any casino tables are stacked against the gambler: as you know house always win.  Fees for stable value are usually quite reasonable something like $50 for $100K invested per year; compare that to 0.5% charges by PIMCO Total Return, which BTW is down for a year as of  October 2008 (for 2008 Total Return can be renamed "Negative return")
  

  We probably should respect those people who used "all stable value" or all bond strategy: they just refused to play in the Wall Street casino and enrich brokers.

   

• They preferred "peace of mind" to rat race and will not spend too much time watching financial news and analyzing obscure charts. There are a lot of more productive and enjoyable activities in this world, especially for good programmers  ;-). I would like to stress it again that you can enjoy life and not to think about recent drop of S&P 500: amount of time stock investors spend on reading market news and other investment crap can be completely disproportionate and can became real and pretty bad addiction.

  Another nice feature of this simple strategy is that you can enjoy life and not to think about recent drop of S&P 500

   

• As of 2008 it's premature to declare stable value fund investors losers as for the last ten year period  (assuming cost averaging from zero balance) ending in 2008 their investment outperformed "all S&P500 investment"   by a considerable margin (7%-40% defending on he month; any yes there was a point at which stable value outperformed S&P500 by 40% -- October 10, 2008).
   
• 401K plans are stacked against investors who put money into stock funds:
  Here is how situation was describe in blog The Mess That Greenspan Made November 13, 2008 (401k Death Watch):

  As if retirement planning (in general) and faith in equity markets (in particular) didn't have enough working against them right now, it seems a small, but growing, number of businesses are foregoing their 401k matching contributions in order to conserve cash (and jobs).

  Having left the confines of traditional employment almost two years ago, those year-end five percent matching contributions are sorely missed.

  What is not missed, however, are the restrictions that most 401k plans impose along with the constant prodding to fill up those Morningstar style boxes with more U.S. equity funds.

  How's that workin' for ya, as Dr. Phil would say.

  It seems that the 401k industry is in a rough patch at the moment with world-leader Fidelity Investments announcing huge layoffs and a growing number of plan participants opting to scale back or stop contributing to their retirement account.

  Those stable value funds may be their only saving grace in the period ahead.

  News comes in this BusinessWeek story about the growing number of companies that are eliminating their matching contributions.

• As for "depression might start tomorrow" this is more often then not a paranoia. Moreover depression is somewhat subjective notion: "It is a recession when your neighbor lose the job as saying "it is a depression when you lose the job" suggests. For example different people access chances of recession differently and in late 2008 nobody knows can it turn into depression or not. Hopefully not. According to Vanguard's Center for Investment Research, investors think that there's a 51%  chance that U.S. stocks will lose a third of their value in any given year.
   

  According to Vanguard's Center for Investment Research, investors think that there's a 51%  chance that U.S. stocks will lose a third of their value in any given year.

  Based on historical returns (which as we all know do not predict the future events), Vanguard calculates that the real probability of that happening is about 2%.  Even if we assume 20% risk of the recession with 33% drop in stock instruments,  holding all 100% of your money in stable value fund might be an overkill. Some percentage that feels comfortable to you should probably be allocated to more risky instruments that have inflation compensation potential (as I mentioned before regular bonds does not have this potential, only TIPs do).

Supplement

Here is an interesting comment that I have found in Let's play the blame game again of the The Mess That Greenspan Made blog on Feb 11, 2009:

Nostradamus, apparently said...
 

I was amazed that you considered changing the name of your blog a while ago.

I found your blog several years ago because I reached the same conclusion you apparently did about Greenspan: He made a BIG MESS of our economy.

I looked up 'Greenspan' and 'mess' on Google, et voila, here I am!

I believe your blog title is part of the reason for your blog's success. (Of course, you're smart, a good writer and you work your tail off, too!)

FWIW, Greenspan will go down in the history books as the biggest villain in the current financial mess and a whole lot of people already see it that way.

It's also galling to picture Greenspan getting a medal from GW Bush. That really says more about Bush than Greenspan.

(It's a lot like "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" It shows how lame Bush is. But, beware: Obama is not looking any better at this point! It's just more of the same old garbage, I'm afraid.)

While history will show Greenspan is a loser, the top 10 list is correct to point out that people can only blame themselves in the end.

Some of us didn't fall for the 'Good Times' temptations offered by nearly free money.

Some of us were raised to believe "There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" and to be VERY suspicious when something (like a half million dollar McMansion with nothing down, 125% financing and interest only payments at 1%) looks too good to be true.

I'm a saver and I've worked very hard and saved very hard for decades to pay off my house and have a wad of cash. I intentionally live way below my means.

My plan was to earn 5-6% interest in bank CDs and retire early and live off the money.

That plan isn't working out so well with interest rates at ridiculously low levels and, to me, the threat of runaway inflation too real.

I avoided the stock market because, as a finance major in college, a former banker and bankruptcy lawyer, I could see that it was a corrupt, Vegas-style, gambling mess with no real substance and huge risk at the ridiculous price levels for almost all stocks.

I had adjusted to the fact that our government encourages borrowing by making the interest deductible and discourages saving by taxing the interest.

I honestly never thought it would go so far as it has to punish savers and reward borrowers. The current 'bailout' fad is simply stunningly unfair.

Greenspan's policies (and now Bernanke's) have made it hard to justify saving money. It's such an insult to get the paltry 1% interest each year and then have to pay taxes on it!

I heard Obama and his surrogates openly state that they want to "get Americans back to where they can borrow money to buy the things they want again."

To me, that is just an amazing thing to admit. You know we're in deep trouble when the new POTUS can say that and almost no one even notices or objects.

Debt is a way of life in America and it will sink us.

I have said for years that I feel as if I'm a 3rd class passenger who is locked below decks aboard the Titanic. I didn't do anything wrong but I'm screwed.

It's a little worse than that because I could see the iceberg coming and I've been yelling to anyone that would listen for years. But no one in power, except Ron Paul, seemed to hear me or agree with me.

That's how I found this blog and I then began to realize that thousands of people saw it coming, too. If all of us 'regular' people could see it coming, how is it that all the powerful geniuses in Washington and on Wall Street couldn't see it coming?

I decided that these powerful people are either liars or wildly incompetent - or BOTH! For that final conclusion, Greenspan is the poster boy.

Obama will still be conducting and his musicians will still be playing as the stern of the USS AMERICA slowly sinks into the dark, cold abyss.

It's a sad story...

Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes :  Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce :  Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS :  Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development :  Scripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month :  How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Created May 16, 2003; Last modified: March 12, 2019