Nearly 20 years ago, Channel 4 unleashed the TV comedy Nathan Barley – to the general disinterest of almost everyone.

The six-episode series saw the eponymous Barley navigating the hipster enclaves of East London on a child’s bicycle, as he attempted to become a ‘self-facilitating media node’.

Nathan Barley – an early work from Black Mirror creator Charlie Brooker – found a few cult fans.

But it confused everyone else.

I suspect you had to occupy a specific youthful London media bubble to get all the references. Of the 700,000 viewers that Nathan Barley did attract, I’d guess 650,000 were there to laugh at the creative swearing.

There are other reasons why the show bombed. Parodying Internet culture seemed passé in the hiatus between the Dotcom crash and YouTube and Facebook. Almost nobody back then shared their life online in video the way Barley did. East London’s Shoreditch already seemed ‘over’ if you were a hipster who’d arrived in the early 1990s. And Barley’s ‘Rise of the Idiots’ theme perhaps seemed frivolous while war raged in the Middle East.

Watch Nathan Barley now though and it’s a vision of our everyday:

The idiots won, obviously.

People do the funniest things

If you’re under 30 then, you might not find Nathan Barley very funny for a different reason. Which is that its world and characters no longer seem strange at all.

It’s hard to believe, but everyone being glued to their mobile phones in Nathan Barley was meant to be laughed at. The ubiquitous mobiles seemed over the top in 2005. This was two years before the first iPhone, remember.

But today my website analytics tell me that more than half of you will be reading this on a smartphone.

We’re all Nathan Barley now.

Pouring cold water on the FIRE pioneers

A lot can change in a couple of decades to turn the peculiar into a prophecy.

And I suspect a similar transformation of social norms will happen with FIRE1 over the next 20 years.

FIRE broke out of its Internet backwater a few years ago. Since then we’ve probably seen as many writers deriding it as actually investigating how FIRE practitioners look to achieve financial independence.

True, Charlie Brooker hasn’t yet created a drama starring Mr Money Mustache battling the Internet Retirement Police.

But FIRE’s critics regularly smirk at those of us who…

Want to quit boring jobs to pursue our passions – “These precious snowflakes don’t realise that life is meant to be hard graft!”

Aim to live off saved assets rather than work – “Madness! Who’d let their well-being depend on the whims of Wall Street?”

Target a 4% safe withdrawal rate – “Nobody knows when the stock market will crash! Future returns aren’t guaranteed! How can FIRE followers call any withdrawal rate ‘safe’?”

Study life expectancy forecasts to figure out how long our money will last – “Bit morbid, isn’t it? My dad didn’t think about any of this. He just did his job for as long as he could.”

Put something other than work on a pedestal – “Nobody cares about your watercolour paintings, salsa dancing, or your trip to Choquequirao.”

Pursue unrealistic financial goals – “FIRE might make sense for a few richly-paid tech and finance bros. But most people have zero chance of becoming financially independent.”

I could go on. You often hear healthcare cost concerns in the US, for example. Others argue it’s selfish to spend your kids’ inheritance on your living expenses.

FIRE pioneers are mapping out our future

Most of these complaints have some basis in reality. Few would deny it’s hard to amass a sufficient wodge to make FIRE work. Nor to husband your precious pot to go the distance.

Heck, these challenges are what keeps Monevator in content.

From exploring how to max out a big pension to portfolio diversification to the rebranded Sustainable Withdrawal Rate, these are frontier lands, with hostiles as likely to be around the next corner as a nugget of gold.

However I’d suggest many of these issues are simply being run into by FIRE pioneers first, rather than by them uniquely.

We’re all in it together

Consider the big trends in personal finance and demographics facing today’s workers:

End of Defined Benefit pension schemes for most of us – Many a FIRE critics’ attack vector has zeroed in on the unseemliness of thinking about your future retirement income – early or otherwise – in your 20s and 30s. But FIRE pioneers are only getting their heads around this ahead of the rest of the population. Paternalistic company pensions are almost a relic of history.

Pension freedoms and the ‘pots for life’ talk – Ditto wondering how best to invest your pension, drawdown an income, or manage your money to make it last. Today’s pensioners often hit these questions without giving them any thought beforehand. Future pensioners who’ve hung around geeky FIRE locales debating the 4% rule should be better at managing their own money.

Increased longevity and (potentially) longer retirements – Someone retiring early at 45 clearly needs a good handle on how long they’re likely to live. Otherwise, their retirement funds are liable to flatline before they do. But with today’s 65-year olds already set to live on average into their late 80s (and newborn girls having a life expectancy of 90) a 45-year old retiree has more in common with a 60-year old retiree than not.

Longer and more flexible working lives – I ​don’t personally believe​ it’s best for most people to fully retire in their 40s, say. Increased longevity is one reason why. But me and my fellow flexi-FIRE types who instead ​reinvent the rules of work​ and retirement to suit our lifestyles – and fast-evolving economic reality – won’t seem so unusual in 20 years’ time. By then everybody will be at it.

Shorter job tenures, more job hopping – Older generations saw restructuring, offshoring, and outsourcing destroy the notion of a job for life. Now younger generations are job hopping faster than ever. FIRE seekers aim to max their income – and savings – so they can potentially opt-out ASAP. They chase the best opportunities rather traditional career paths. Seems prescient.

Interest rates and inflation – Macroeconomics matters long-term and – disasters notwithstanding – that long-term is coming for more people. High inflation, say, wasn’t such a risk when you only expected a fixed annuity to see you through a ten-year-long retirement. But just ask anyone under-75 with a fixed income how they feel about the 30%-plus inflation we’ve endured over the past few years. Ever more of us will become money geeks in order to understand these risks.

Less family support, more going it alone – Some deride FIRE singletons or couples who have no kids. “Easy mode!” they cry. But fertility rates across the wealthy world have more than halved since 1960. More people than ever have no children at all. This doesn’t just make FIRE more realistic for them (according to the critics’ own terms). It also means no kids to help look after them later, which means yet more DIY-ing through the challenges of old age.

Of course a lot of other things could happen over the next 20 years too. Even if we dodge a nuclear or climate-related catastrophe, there’s the potential of AI coming for our jobs.

Even so, I struggle to think of a future in which the world looks more like that of a salaryman in Surbiton in the 1970s than a FIRE pioneer on a laptop in 2024.

No one is a prophet in their own land

In literature and philosophy you often find that those best able to criticise a topic are also the ones most capable of seeing to the very heart of their target.

For example while it’s hardly flawless, you won’t find a better foreshadowing of capitalist consumer culture than Karl Marx’s Das Kapital.

Perhaps it takes an external perspective to see the broadest trends. Whereas those actually living the lifestyle of tomorrow are just getting on with it.

Nathan Barley filmed himself ‘pranking’ his hapless co-workers because it was witless fun, not because he anticipated YouTube clickbait. He was on the money in trying to be a ‘media node’. His problem was he got there before Instagram and TikTok birthed the influencer economy.

When I think about FIRE today, I see something similar going on. FIRE’s tenets offer an early glimpse of a widespread future.

Those of us pursuing financial independence might like to think we’re outsiders seeking a very different path to the masses.

But it seems probable to me that the questions FIRE pioneers are attempting to answer will soon be asked by almost everyone. We’re just ahead of the crowd.

1. Financial Independence Early Retirement [↩]

Younger readers may want to watch this YouTube taster before forging into what follows. Because we all need more 30-year-old cultural references in our media diet, right? On the other hand, anyone short of time or sleep may want to sit this one out altogether. No offence taken!

Blind Date for Investors: an unreality TV show

*Perky theme tune and cheesy TV voiceover*: Hello lolly-lovers and welcome to another episode of Blind Date for Investors. Yes it’s the show that plays Cupid to the cash-strapped. That finds stranded assets a home to be biased about. That has sexier returns than Ann Summers after Valentine’s Day. Now please give a big round of applause for your glamorous host, Scylla Black!

Glamorous Scylla Black: Oh thank you! Thank you my lovelies. Alright settle down. Yes that includes you at the back waving your SIPP application form! Better luck next time poppet. Because we’ve already lined up a very special investor for this evening’s show! *applause* A young lady with bright prospects and a savings rate to die for! *gasps* Well to dine out for anyway. Ladies and gentleman, please give a lovely Blind Date for Investors welcome to tonight’s fortune hunter!

*perky theme tune plays again then camera pans to Scylla with contestant*

Scylla: Hello my lovely – please tell us who you are and where you’re from.

Investor: My name is Jane and I’m from Croydon!

*crowd applauds*

Scylla: Crikey I haven’t heard such applause about Croydon since that one time I was on a train that pulled out of Croydon station. Well anyway how are you doing Jane? Nervous? Cash burning a hole in your pocket? *raises eyebrows, crowd applauds* Looking for a partner for life?

Investor Jane: Hi Scylla! I’m just so excited to be here! I’ve been dreaming of a seven-figure fortune ever since I saw Cinderella as a little girl!

Scylla: And what little girl wouldn’t, poppet? Her figure! Her shoes! The handbags!  The panda poo face masks!

Jane: *nervous laugh* Well, that’s all lovely but what I’m really looking for is financial independence! I want a contestant who can bring some FIRE into my life.

*crowd cheers and applauds*

The contenders

Scylla: FIRE eh? We have a hot one in tonight folks! Better get the fire extinguishers ready… Okay Jane, let’s meet the three gorgeous prospects who are looking to win you over.

*Curtain draws back on the other side of a screen from Jane to reveal three investment strategies – um, somehow incarnated as ruddy young men in their 20s. Crowd applauds, rightly enough at such wizardry*

Scylla: I know audience, aren’t they gorgeous? *puts a hand on Jane’s shoulder* Jane love, I’ve taken a peek at our prospects and you are in for a treat! Honestly, if I wasn’t wedded to my annuity I’d be compounding with them myself.

Crowd: Oooo!

Jane: Um…

Scylla: Don’t worry, don’t worry – they are all yours doll. Okay, so let’s get started. Number one, please tell us who you are and where you’ve come from.

#1: Hi Scylla, my name is Ian and I’m from Cambridge!

*crowd applauds*

Scylla: Hello Ian! Not the most exciting name ever but we’ll let that slide in the pursuit of financial bliss. So Ian love, why do you think you’re the one for our Jane?

Ian #1: Well Scylla I may not be the most exciting strategy here tonight, but I’m proven to be the most reliable. Together Jane and I could ride out the volatility, diversify our assets, and enjoy many happy returns.

*crowd applauds*

Scylla: I see. Well as I always say to my husband I love a humble man – and he has a lot to be humble about. Right, let’s hear from our next contender. Number two, who are you?

#2: Hello? Hello is this thing on? Oh right. Yes… I’m Chris and I’m from, well, Halifax.

Scylla: Welcome Chris! You sound a bit nervous chuck. Don’t get out much?

Chris #2: Hah, um, well no. I tend to just hang around in the background doing my thing.

Scylla: I see – but I’m not sure Jane is looking for an air-conditioning unit Chris. What else have you got to offer?

Chris #2: Reliability Scylla. I am rock-solid and I will never let Jane down. I mean, provided she doesn’t get carried away and tries to keep too much of me in one place. Even I have my limits, you know.

Scylla: Intriguing Chris. Some might say scintillating. Not me, but hey – there’s someone out there for everyone. Okay let’s turn to our last contestant. What have you got for me number three?

#3: Oh I’ve got the lot Scylla! My name is Abel and I’m from London!

*Abel jumps off his stool and does ten press-ups. Crowd goes crazy*

Scylla: Oo-hoo! I see we have a live wire in tonight. Clearly you’re not shy of selling yourself love so I’m almost scared to ask – but why should Jane pick you?

Abel #3: Have you ever felt the pump of double-digit returns Scylla? Why should Jane trudge along with Ian or Chris – no offence lads – when she could be off to the races with me? By the time we’re done Jane, your ISAs will be so stuffed the regulators will be calling for a change in the law.

*crowd cheers and applauds*

Scylla: Alright, calm down. This is a family show. Not my family mind, my kids are too busy TokTik-ing to follow their old mam’s career. Ungrateful ingrates. Anyway let’s get tonight’s matchmaking underway!

*perky theme tune*

Question one: Me and volatility

Scylla: Alright Jane I can see you’re excited to get going. So what’s your first question going to be?

Jane: Well Scylla, my friends all make fun of me at the fairground because I go wobbly on the rides. So contestants, if we went on a date to Alton Towers what would you do to steady my nerves?

Scylla: Good question Jane. Sensible. Not sure you needed to appear on national TV to deliver such a downer but let’s see what Number One says. Ian, how will stop Jane feeling nauseous when things go bumpy in a bad way?

Ian #1: Well the thing with riding the rollercoaster Scylla, is that for all the ups and downs, at the end of the journey you’re back to where you started and ready to climb to greater heights next time. And with my strategy – regularly investing across diversified index funds – we’ll hold hands and ride out the volatility. Maybe we’ll even distract ourselves with some candy floss on the way.

*One cheer because they let The Accumulator in tonight. Polite claps from the rest of the audience*

Scylla: Hmm, some fans in tonight. Not many but a few. Okay, just one. Anyway same question to number two.

Chris #2: Jane, I couldn’t agree with you more. Life is full of uncertainty but you can sleep at night with my strategy – cash kept in a high interest savings account – and save your excitement for elsewhere. Personally I get my thrills from doing Sudoku puzzles. But I hear Wordle is all the rage now–

Abel #3: –sorry to butt-in Scylla but I can’t believe my ears. Jane, you’re a young woman going places and you’re contemplating bedding down with these two corpses? I don’t think so. With my active investing strategy we’ll shoot for the moon and who cares if we hit a few bumps along our way? Pick me Jane and you’ll be getting a very different kind of sleepless night!

*Jumps out of his seat and does 20 sit-ups. Crowd goes crazy*

Scylla: Alright calm down, we’ve still got two more questions to go. Well Jane, we’ve got a feisty Number Three but – *holds back excited Jane* – no love get back into your stool, you’ve got to deliver all your questions before you can take a peek! What are you gonna ask next poppet?

A question of cost

Jane: Wow! I know which contestant is revving up my returns already Scylla! But fair enough, here’s my second question. I love a bargain and I’m always looking to save a penny. If I decide to invest your way, how will you help me to save even more? Let’s start with Number Two.

Chris #2: Jane, I don’t like to blow my own trumpet or toot my own horn–

Abel #3: –too right, nobody wants to see that mate…

*crowd laughs and cheers*

Chris #2: Ahem, I believe this is my allocated slot Number Three. Alright so as I was saying, I’m not a boaster like a certain other strategy around here, but when it comes to keeping costs low you can’t beat a cash savings account. Because there are no costs! And if we tuck ourselves up together inside a cash ISA then you’ll get to keep all that lovely interest for yourself. Which will leave more money for us to spend on date night with a two-for-one meal deal from M&S!

Abel #3: Excuse me while I yawn myself into a coma.

Chris #2: *splutter*

Scylla: Please, let’s keep it civil! My tricky ticker can’t take all this aggression. Okay Number Three, better out than in I suppose. How will you help Jane with her cost question?

Abel #3: I won’t Scylla!

Scylla: Eh?

Jane: Eh?

Abel #3: I refute the whole premise of this inquiry and instead I’d like to put to you *rummages in a briefcase, pulls out some paper* this colourful graph showing a big slope going up and to the right with lots of other curves going down into the abyss, printed against the backdrop of a bright balloon floating across the Serengeti. Jane, when you’re gawping at this lot do you really think you’ll care about my 1.25% in annual charges plus a 10% performance fee over a 6% hurdle _{on top of a wide-range of undisclosed transaction costs and taxes that legally I have to include here in small print}? Of course you won’t. Again, that’s a photo of the Serengeti, Jane. The Serengeti! 

Jane: I love lions and zebras! Scylla can we stop now? I’ve made my choice.

Scylla: I’m right with you love but unfortunately we have to plough on to the bitter end. We haven’t even heard yet from Ian and his pensive investing into intense funds thing. 

Ian #1: Thank you Scylla – though you mean passive investing into index funds. And my correction is important, because while I admit my funds aren’t intense, they are intensely cost-competitive! *laughs to himself, looks out at audience, audience shrugs although one person guffaws* Oh this is ridiculous. Scylla, Number Three makes all these promises but he has no evidence to back it up. Whereas I’m here to tell you that the vast majority of active strategies like his fail to beat the market over the long-term. Jane, you say you want a seven-figure sum to achieve FIRE, but if you go with Number Three then it’ll be you that is paying for his sports car–

Abel #3: –Jane, Jane, sure but it’ll be you and me both in that sports car babe!

Ian #1: Yeah right. Far more likely you’ll underperform me and then shoot off with your profits in your Aston Martin to leave poor Jane in the lurch. Cad! Bounder!

Abel #3: Boooorringgg…

Chris #2: I’m still here, you know. I’m much more interesting than you think!

Ian #1 and Abel #3 together: Pffft!

Many (/some) happy returns

Jane: Oh Scylla. Who should I believe?

Scylla: It’s every girl’s dilemma pet. We’ve all read our Jane Austen and our Tim Hale. But remember you still have one question left. Better make it a good one.

Jane: Alright calm down Janey, deep breaths…Scylla my last question is this…Everyone wants to believe in happy ever after once they make an investment. So my question to each contestant is what can I expect if I commit to you? Let’s start with Number Two, Chris from Halifax.

Chris #2: I’m very glad you asked Jane because my returns have been attracting quite a bit of attention of late. How does 5.2% tax-free in a cash ISA sound to you? Remember this is with zero risk.

Jane: Well that does sound very nice.

Ian #1: Scylla, if I may? I don’t believe Number Two is telling us the whole story. He’s misleading Jane by not bringing inflation into the picture.

Abel #3: Yeah not to mention he can’t usually get it up like this. *crowd cackles* Returns from cash were barely above the horizontal for a decade! 

Scylla: Hmm, fair points. What have you go to say for yourself Number Two?

Chris #2: Yes, well, it’s true interest rates were near-zero for a long time but that was then and this is now. Also like I said nobody ever lost money with me!

Ian #1: Well perhaps not in nominal terms but what about after inflation? Why don’t you share your real returns?

Chris #2: Ahem. Well. After inflation, UK investors have enjoyed a *mumble mumble mumble*

Scylla: Eh? Speak up love!

Chris #2: Alright, fine, yes in real terms cash has lost about 1% over the past 20 years. But over the past 150-odd years you’ve made 0.9% a year! That’s not too shabby I’m sure you’ll agree.

Jane: Oh dear, that’s no good – I don’t want to achieve FIRE on my 150th birthday.

Chris #2: *weeps*

Jane: What about you Number One. Can you promise me any better?

Ian #1: Well, no promises Jane, that’s charlatan talk. But esteemed financial writer The Accumulator on the Monevating website *one audience member cheers* tells us UK shares have delivered more than 5% a year after inflation for the past 50 years. And only a little less over the past 20 years!

Jane: But I don’t want to own only UK shares. There’s more to life than GB News, Ian.

Ian #1: Quite right, and you shouldn’t just own equities either. But happily The Accumulator also estimated expected returns from a diversified portfolio of index funds across various equities and bonds, and he found you can look forward to over 3% a year for the long-term. Remember, this is after inflation. A much prettier picture than the 1% from Number Two, I think you’ll agree?

Chris #2: Sure, sure – if you don’t mind waking up one day to find a quarter of your portfolio has been evaporated by a simultaneous bond and equity crash.

Ian #1: Well that’s an exaggeration– 

Abel #3: –YAAAAAWWWWN! Sorry Scylla, apologies Jane. But why are we listening to these two bozos debate the difference between 1% and 3%? I’ve found more loose change down the back of my sofa. Jane, have ever heard of Warren Buffett? Or George Soros?

Jane: Yes I have.

Abel #3: Yeah well those guys didn’t get out of bed for 1%–

Ian #1: –I’m projecting 3%–

Abel #3: –whatever mate! It’s a rounding error compared to the 20% annual returns that Warren Buffett puts up. And George Soros did 30%!

Chris #2: Excuse me Number Three, I know I’m dull but I must have missed your name?

Abel #3: Huh? It’s Abel! Abel Active.

Ian #2: I see. So it’s not Warren. Nor, it seems, George. 

Abel #3: Um, no? Like I said it’s Abel–

Chris #1: –ah, I see where you’re going Number Two. Yeah Abel, instead of quoting the returns from Buffett or Soros maybe you could tell us what returns YOU have achieved over the past ten years? Specifically, did your active investing antics beat the market?

Scylla: That’s a good point Mr Fancy Pants. Never mind the 20% earned by some old duffer in Omaha. What our Jane needs to know is whether your expensive active funds did the business?

Abel #3: Well… Okay no, we lagged the market by 2% a year. But it has been a very unusual period with incredible distortion from Central Banks! And we prudently positioned our portfolio for the global pandemic at the bottom in March 2020, meaning our investors were safely protected from *checks notes* um stock markets then near-doubling as they bounced back over the following 12 months.

Jane: Yikes!

Abel #3: We didn’t do as badly as some Jane! Besides, have you seen my sports car?

Decision time

Scylla: Well Jane it’s time to make your mind up! I know it’s a lot to take in – I just met my Harry in a motorway services station lavatory and I’ve never regretted it. Ho hum, simpler times! But let’s have a recap.

*Music. Cheesy voice returns and intones: So Jane, will you pick Number One, with his diversified assets that will really put a return in your portfolio? Our will you pick Number Two, who has gone from nought to 5.2% faster than you can say “yeah but inflation peaked at 11% in 2022”? Or will it be Number Three, who idolises Warren Buffett but whose own portfolio is as limp as a salad buffet? Jane, the decision is yours!*  

Jane: Oh dear, when you put it like that.

Scylla: I know love… and we started off with such high hopes.

Jane: Can I pick Bitcoin?

Scylla: …

*Music theme as the credits roll*

The end. Thanks for making it this far. It seemed like a fun idea when I started. Maybe add your favourite investing chat-up lines in the comments?

*Kerfuffle. The Accumulator bursts in*

The Accumulator: Okay that’s enough. You’re fired! 

The Investor: Sorry old bean. Wrong show!

What caught my eye this week.

The best news this week from the election dog and pony show is that Labour will not reinstate the recently-scrapped Lifetime Allowance for Pensions (LTA).

According to the BBC:

Labour has dropped a plan to reintroduce a cap on how much people are allowed to save into their pensions before paying tax.

Under the pensions lifetime allowance, pension pots over £1.07m faced an annual tax of £40,000 on average.

The cap was scrapped in April but Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves had vowed to bring it back, saying it could raise £800m a year.

However, her party has now reversed the decision ahead of the release of its manifesto on Thursday, reportedly because the cap would add uncertainty for savers and be complex to reintroduce.

Of course the BBC momentarily gets the LTA wrong – it’s not a cap on savings made, but rather on the total size of your pot before additional taxation kicks in – but that’s all in the rich tradition of confusion about this cursed legislation.

A lifetime of muddle

When Chancellor Jeremy Hunt first announced he’d abolish the LTA from April 2024, Reeves called it: “the wrong priority, at the wrong time, for the wrong people”.

But the LTA itself was a cumbersome shape-shifting bundle of contradictions, which surely did the pension regime more harm than anything it sort to redress.

Even in death it’s a pain in the arse. Last month the FT reported thousands of investors with large pension pots were in limbo due to sloppy legislation:

Though the Conservatives scrapped the lifetime allowance in April, errors in the legislation affected people who relied on the enhanced protection arrangements giving them the right to take out more than £375,000 in tax free lump sums.

In April, HMRC advised those savers to consider delaying their retirement plans until the rules were corrected.

Fortunately Labour now says it won’t add to this confusion.

A welcome dose of common sense which we could do with by the truckload after the fantasy politics of the past eight years.

Seven-figure sticker shock

Indeed, it’d be nice to think Labour’s change of heart marks a new era of pension stability.

But I wouldn’t bet the farm.

Many Labour supporters will still take umbrage at the seven-figure pension pots being ‘favoured’ by the scrapping of the LTA. They won’t think too hard about what size of pots would be required to deliver some of the public sector’s defined benefit pensions either.

So something may yet be done in the quest for ‘fairness’.

In reality, pension income is taxed. Those enjoying a very large pension income – whether from the private sector or the state – will be paying higher rates of tax anyway.

Possibly enough to neuter much of the tax deferral benefit of pensions.

Death is not the end

Where I do find the pension regime too generous is in pensions’ transformation into a vehicle for bypassing inheritance taxes.

Those who die before they reach 75 can pass on a pension free of income tax for beneficiaries. The latter can be heirs who did nothing to earn that money. And here I deploy my usual argument that I’d rather tax them than working people.

With all parties promising us wonderful things funded on the back of ‘closing tax loopholes’ – loopholes apparently left wide open by a cash-strapped State for many years, but there you go – maybe that’s where Labour will look instead?

For now though, the end of uncertainty about the end of the LTA is good news – if a mouthful – and good politics.

Have a great weekend!

[continue reading…]