Thursday, June 6, 2013

Dave Ramsey's 8% Withdrawal Rate

Having spent the better part of the last 10 years in Japan, I have not been all that familiar with Dave Ramsey. Sure, I've heard from time to time that there is a radio show financial guru who talks about 12% market returns and an 8% withdrawal rate in retirement, but that sounded so farfetched that I guess I thought it was an urban legend. Apparently, it is true.

Dave Ramsey got into a bit of a kerfuffle this past weekend on Twitter in his response to fiduciary planners about the nature of his investment advice. He was questioned about the prudence of suggesting 12% returns and recommending loaded mutual funds to his listeners. Because what he promotes is seemingly unjustifiable, he lashed out at these financial planners for challenging him, indicating that he can help more people in 10 minutes than they help in their entire lives, and that they are all snobs because they do not help regular people.

In March, I debunked the myth of the 8% return. Dave Ramsey takes that a step further by promoting 12% returns, but he is simply making all of the mistakes described in that post to an even larger degree.

There is a lot of distrust toward the financial services industry, and while much of it is justified, sometimes consumers should share a bit of responsibility. I could recently see how this plays out, and how honest financial planners can be pushed out of the business. As I'm not a financial planner myself, I don't have to worry about obtaining clients. I was recently talking to someone about getting started in investing, explaining the benefits of a low-cost index fund approach. The conversation was going fine, and then he asked me what return he should expect from such a portfolio. The question caught me off guard, because once you have a sound strategy you need to be ready to receive whatever the market provides, but then I started getting into some of the issues from the myth of 8% return column. If I had been a financial planner seeking clients, I can see that this is where I would've likely lost this lead. He could have then said, well thank you Mr. Pfau for your time, but I've been listening to Dave Ramsey and he knows how to pick mutual funds that offer a 12% return. I think I will take my business to one of his affiliated advisers so that I can get access to those high earning funds.

This is the fundamental trouble facing honest people trying to make a living in the financial services industry. There is always going to be someone willing to suggest that higher returns are possible. Consumers will naturally gravitate toward whoever is offering them the best story about how they can achieve riches. With his 12% returns, Dave Ramsey sits at the top of the financial services heap. And as his business model of using affiliated advisers who pay him a fee and sell you commissioned high-load mutual funds depends on maintaining the fiction of 12% returns, there is no way he can step down when challenged about this issue. So he sidesteps the issue and makes personal attacks instead.

When it comes to retirement, Dave Ramsey says you should be 100% stocks and that this will support an 8% inflation-adjusted withdrawal rate. It sounds wonderful. Certainly that allows for a lot more spending than what you would think possible if you're a regular reader of this blog. But this number comes from a completely ludicrous basis. He opened an Excel spreadsheet, assumed a fixed annual return of 12%  [Bernie Madoff might even be jealous of that return sequence], and determined that 8% is a sustainable withdrawal rate with inflation of 4% and that wealth will never be depleted. The problem with this is so basic that it's hard to believe Dave Ramsey is ignorant about it. It's the sequence of returns risk. It's what William Bengen illustrated in the 1990s. The sustainable withdrawal rate can be less than the average portfolio return because people are taking income out of the portfolio, and when the market is down the funds they take out don't get the chance to rebound on the subsequent recovery.

Readers of this blog know that I am not a big fan of the Trinity study. But once in a while, the study can be dusted off and put to some use when helping to dispel some bizarre notions. The Trinity study simply tells us the percentage of historical periods in the US when a particular retirement income strategy would have worked. In the following table, what we want to focus on is the Dave Ramsey strategy of using an 8% withdrawal rate and a portfolio of 100% stocks. In 74% of the historical cases, this would've supported 15 years the spending (or in other words, in 26% of cases someone following Dave Ramsey's strategy would have ran out of wealth within 15 years). Over 25 years, someone has the coin flip to whether this strategy will work, as it has a 50% success rate. Over the more typical retirement planning horizon of 30 years, Dave Ramsey strategy would have worked in only 37% of the historical cases. As retirement lengthens the success rate continues to fall. 


And these numbers are pre-fee. If you pay a 5.75% load at the beginning, your effective withdrawal rate would be pushed up to 8.5% for the purposes of this table. And this is still optimistic, because it assumes that the recommended mutual fund manager is able to outperform the market enough to cover the active management fees they charge, which is an exceedingly unlikely outcome over a long period of time. 

Someone may still decide to use Dave Ramsey's strategy if they have low aversion to outliving their financial assets, but "regular people" must understand what they are potentially getting themselves into with that advice.






(Just a technical note: for longer time periods there are fewer historical simulations and so sometimes you see an increase in success rates because one of the failures gets cut off... That happens with the 35 years and 40 year retirement periods)

42 comments:

  1. Wade--the discussion you related is a perfect example of how the anchoring bias underlies and undermines Mr. Ramsey's advice. While he continues to claim that the 12% number that he touts (concurrently conflating average returns with CAGR) is "educational" and "for example only," the reality is that the unsophisticated listener hears 12% average return, becomes anchored to it, and expects to get 12% (or more) every single year. Furthermore, Mr. Ramsey's own newsletter encourages people to take 12% as the average return, assume 8% withdrawal, and work backwards from retirement to figure out how much to save per year. In doing so, the family who follows that advice will, if they receive returns which match the CAGR of the S&P 500, fall 77% short of their retirement goals.

    I am an absolutely and complete fanboy of Mr. Ramsey's advice when it comes to getting out of debt, but his incorrect assumptions paired with an anchoring bias (as well as a confirmation bias...how many people will read what you or I write and say "well, Dave Ramsey says something else," which supports having to save less and make more money, and disregard our work?) expose investors to significant amounts of risk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jason, thanks for inspiring this post with your own excellent post on the matter today.

      You are certainly right. When he says 12%, it doesn't matter even if he includes caveats, the "regular people" (his words) will interpret that as him knowing how to obtain a 12% return.

      Delete
    2. All good points, Jason. The other glaring problem is that he hasn't been famous for long enough for some of this bad advice to start showing up in people's lives.

      As some of Dave's early disciples start retiring with the 12% return and 8% SWR beliefs to boot, I have a feeling there will be some outrage. Or a whole lot more 70 year olds working at McDonald's to keep the utilties on and food in their bellies.

      I've always said that his debt advice is awesome, but he should just stop right there...

      Just my 2 cents...

      Delete
  2. Wade, as much as I want to support people like Dave Ramsey (and maybe Suze Orman) as they are as much part of our industry as anyone, there is just a high degree of irresponsibility with some of their advice.

    While it is true that they do some good work with helping people face their debt, build cash reserves, and manage their spending, when it comes to investment & insurance advice, they simply fall flat. It ranges from plain-vanilla/one-size-fits-all (which is dangerous in our profession, since every client is unique), to downright outrageous (as is the case with the 12% return/8% withdrawal strategy).

    I simply don't understand how they get away with some of this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're not getting away with it. It seems like every financial writer has taken Dave to task for these issues at some point. I wrote about it a year ago:

      http://whitecoatinvestor.com/making-different-choices-due-to-low-expected-returns/

      That said, I think we need to be careful not to be too pessimistic (which I think Wade is.) If future expected portfolio returns are really less than 2% real, that's a complete game-changer. If I can't get 2% real out of my portfolio, it's time to do something else. I've written about it here:

      http://whitecoatinvestor.com/making-different-choices-due-to-low-expected-returns/

      Now I'm a relatively young investor, having only started in 2004, but for me the best argument against 2% real returns is the fact that I've had 8.2% nominal returns (nearly 6% real) for the last 9 years. Am I doing something weird? Nope. Just a fairly typical, but aggressive, Boglehead style fixed asset allocation of low-cost mutual funds.

      I see little point in investing in stocks and bonds if it will take 4 decades for my money to double in value. I'll go buy rental real estate. It doesn't take any effort or leverage to find a property with a cap rate of 5-6 (2-4% real) and relatively easy to get 10% levered returns. Why would I invest in stocks/bonds for 2% real when I can get 7% real with real estate? I wouldn't, and neither would anyone else. Capital will flow elsewhere until yields/expected returns come up.

      Good article Wade.

      Delete
    2. Thanks to both of you. Perhaps my estimated returns are on the low (but still reasonable) side, but I suppose that comes partly from wanting to play it safe and preferring to be pleasantly surprised later on than having things go the other way. Low return expectations do not deter me from wanting to save.

      Delete
  3. Thanks, Wade, it's great to see the researchers & academics direct a spotlight on Ramsey's bad investing advice. Have you read John Greaney's comparison of the "endorsed local providers" to a Vanguard portfolio?
    http://retireearlyhomepage.com/daveramsey.html

    Heh-- Jason, you're the first guy I thought of when I read this post-- an honest CFP who has to educate clients about Ramsey's conflicted marketing tactics. His personal attacks are even more disappointing to read about than Suze Orman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing the link, Doug. That's fascinating.

      That is a tough business model to reconcile with any sort of financial services code of ethics.

      Delete
    2. Doug--Yes, that's basically the approach I took, except that I took funds which Ramsey ACTUALLY cited on his show when "interviewing" Brian Stoffer (more like bullrushing an unprepared debate opponent) and compared them to their Vanguard equivalents. I have to admit, I was surprised to find one of them had outperformed the Vanguard index equivalent, but once you tacked the load on there, then the Vanguard selection was superior.

      Another issue, which I didn't address in my article and Wade hasn't here, is that for the uneducated (which, in this case, most of his listeners are), disclosure, even if it’s a conflict of interest, increases the trust between discloser and recipient, leading to an increase in behavior that the discloser recommends.
      http://www.cbdr.cmu.edu/mpapers/CainLoewensteinMoore2005.pdf

      So, Ramsey could say "yes, I get a cut; I believe front-loaded mutual funds are the correct path," and people would buy front-loaded mutual funds. Therefore, the only solution is for him to provide correct advice in the first place.

      You mentioned Suze Orman; I'm surprised she was allowed to retain her CFP(R) designation, as it's quite clear in the standards that CFP(R)s must have a fiduciary duty to their clients.

      Delete
  4. Great article Wade. I wanted to write similar but you beat me to it. Dave Ramsey has helped a lot of people on the frugality/debt side of things and I respect him for that, but he clearly is out of his league and has a conflict of interest on the retirement planning/ investment strategy side of this business. I've spread this around social media to try and bring more attention to your excellent work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wade, nice piece, and good stuff adding various

    I used the Shiller numbers for my calculator (which, obviously, pre-date the actual S&P 500 - but do go back to 1871) and had slightly more optimistic results... 5.56% of the time beating 12% (nominally) over 40 years (and never inflation adjusted) http://dqydj.net/investments-and-returns/ . For the record, I'm reinvesting dividends. However, no tax or transaction fees are assumed.

    I shared my data manipulations with your compatriot Mr. Hull, but if you're interested I can toss the spreadsheet your way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. You are finding that over 40 year periods, one could expect to obtain Dave Ramsey's advertised return only 5.56% of the time. It's 23% over 20 year periods. So it's not impossible, but it also isn't something that happens very often. I do see that you are talking about compounded returns, which is implicitly what Dave Ramsey is talking about. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. If I was Dave, I'd definitely scale it back a bit - 8% returns (compounded, dividends reinvested) happened about 2/3 of the time for 40 years. 5% and 6% happened in the high 90%s.

      Any of those is way more defensible than 12%.

      Delete
  6. Wade, this is fantastic. I can't tell you how many times I encounter this. "This is the fundamental trouble facing honest people trying to make a living in the financial services industry. There is always going to be someone willing to suggest that higher returns are possible." - Dana

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dana, Thank you. Talking with you and Jim about this in Phoenix really struck the point home for me. Now that I'm blogging again, hopefully I'll get your book finished and do a write up!

      Delete
  7. Great post Wade, I think this is a must-read for prospective retirees as well as those of us who advise them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great post, Wade (as usual). I promoted it here: http://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/more-on-dave-ramsey/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wade, I wrote the following on Mike Piper's site three years ago: "The problem with Dave Ramsey and other big-name financial gurus is that they have talked themselves into a belief in their own omniscience. Once the guru decides what The Truth is, any dissent is treated as an expression of malice or envy (even though each guru’s advice may be wildly at variance with their fellow gurus). And the guru’s loyal followers will not tolerate any hint that their idol may have feet of clay."

    That said, the most interesting point I glean from your table above is that, if one sticks to a 3-4% withdrawal rate, asset allocation is immaterial so long as one has a healthy dollop of stocks in the portfolio. This should serve as a reassurance to those of us who worry perhaps unnecessarily if our stock-bond ratio is all it should be given our risk tolerance and time horizon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Larry,

      In the US history data, worst-case sustainable withdrawal rates varied little for stock allocations between 30-80%. William Bengen talked about that in one of his early follow-up articles.

      But the US historical record may not provide the best indication about the future.

      Delete
  10. Wade, what a great post (thank you Todd For sharing!). I have always disliked the 12% and loaded funds and had also wanted to do this post. :)

    I don't mind targeting a high return, but I still only do my planning on 8% return. It is one thing to plan for a high return and end up with a low return, and another to plan for a low return and end up with a high.

    I like to plan for the worst and expect the best. It is a good way to actually get to enjoy your retirement.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dave Ramsey, despite his everyman bluster, is primarily interested in promoting Dave Ramsey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After listening to his radio show for a few months, I have come to the same conclusion.

      Delete
  12. I have personally benefitted from Dave Ramsey's teachings and have completed financial peace university and have read his Total Money Makeover book. I agree with what all has been said here about unrealistic 12% returns; however you have to remember that he uses that predominately as an illustration. In my opinion just be because he uses an over zealous illustration it does not mean that his investment advice is bad or dangerous. He recommends investing 15% of your monthly income and he provides several mutual fund investment categories. What is wrong with that advice? Would you change this strategy if he gave 8% return illustrations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This idea that he uses 12% as an illustration seems to be relatively new. Jason Hull covered all of this in greater detail in his blog post linked to in my reply up above. He had the first comment on thread. It would be one thing if he used 12% as an example, but the suggestion seems to be that he knows how to find mutual funds that will return 12%. At any rate, this blog post is less about his 12% return assumption and more about his 8% safe withdrawal rate proclamation. That is potentially much more dangerous.

      Delete
  13. Wade, with regard to your 2/27/13 article, Debunking the Myth of the 8% Return, I don't understand why a different inflation number gets subtracted from the arithmetic return of stocks and bonds. Stocks' 11.8% becomes 8.6%, yet bonds' 5.5% becomes 2.6%. What am I missing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Joe,
      For the real returns, I calculated the real return for each year before calculating the average. I didn't just subtract average inflation from the nominal numbers. Because there are different correlations between inflation and stocks, and between inflation and bonds, this explains what you are seeing.

      Delete
  14. Dave recommends you invest 15% and invest in something you know. Is the 15% wrong? I don't think so. Is the actual return you can expect wrong, probably but I knew that as soon as I did minor research on fidelity or charles schwab. Your table above has the 100% stocks investment as outperforming or staying even with all other forms of investing, so I fail to see why Dave's advice of 100% being in error. The sum total of your argument is he shouldn't use 12% because people who don't do any research or care about their money with expect it. Someone who doesn't do their homework is left rely on someone who does or (in some cases) does not know what they are doing. I say this is a great opportunity for the financial professional to work with the client and educate them about what really happens with their money and earn their business. My advice in all this -Educate yourself to a basic level so you are not at the mercy of the unscrupulous or stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, a 15% savings rate over 30 years is good advice. About 100% stocks performing better, that is one of the problems with the Trinity study (I mentioned I don't like it much), as it focuses on the probably of failure and not the magnitude of failure. Higher stock allocations have more upside potential and more downside risk. Why can't Dave Ramsey just provide realistic numbers directly, rather than providing unrealistic numbers under the assumption that listeners will then go out and determine on their own what realistic numbers are? Nonetheless, I do agree with your advice at the end.

      Delete
  15. How about focusing on ensuring people invest in their future by taking control of their? This is what "turns me off" with some financial professionals. Let's focus on whether the interest rate used is 100% accurate as opposed to getting people to invest in their financial future and take care of themselves and their family. As someone who has followed Mr. Ramsey and will continue to follow him as well as coordinate his classes (which we are not compensated for by his company, we believe in the process and are paying it forward)I will continue to caution people to be leery of those financial professionals who focus solely on the interest rates being exact as opposed to those who should be teaching their clients and the public about overall savings, living below their means, paying with cash and investing in their future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think projecting a realistic scenario is mutually exclusive from the other important issues you describe.

      Delete
    2. I appreciate Dave for all of the things you mention. And his idea of saving 15% toward retirement is a great start. But if someone takes that to heart and plots out 15% over the next 25 years at a 12% growth rate and says "hey, I'm doing fine, I'll have $2.5M to retire on" will get a nasty surprise when he falls $700k short, which would be the difference between Dave's 12% and 9.87% (the actual annualized return of the S&P 500 since 1926). If that person would have been (and could have been) saving 20% instead of the 15%, he'd be fine. But because of Dave's bold assertion that 12% is a safe assumption, he's needlessly undersaving. Yes, personal finance is only 20% math and 80% behavior. But when the behavior is driven by the math, that math had better be correct.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, you are correct. You should be wary of any financial professional that is solely focused on return. Good financial professionals are focused on planning and investor behavior. You've missed the point because of your bias for Mr. Ramsey. Mr. Paynter makes the point well. The problem is that Mr. Ramsey has placed himself in a position where many trust him and take his advice to heart. Unfortunately, when a group of knowledgeable professionals called him to task on some of his advice, he let his pride get in the way and displayed disappointing arrogance. Is it really that hard to admit that you were wrong and adjust your advice? He would earn a great deal of respect from many quarters if he did.

      Delete
  16. Wade - you began this post with, "Having spent the better part of the last 10 years in Japan..." I wonder how, if any, the Japanese stock and bond markets' performances during your time there influenced your conservative (but I think very reasonable) investment return assumptions?

    Your post on June 7 stated in part, "Perhaps my estimated returns are on the low (but still reasonable) side, but I suppose that comes partly from wanting to play it safe and preferring to be pleasantly surprised later on than having things go the other way. Low return expectations do not deter me from wanting to save."

    Individuals investing for retirement over the last 10-20 years in the US who projected their account balances to grow at 10 or 12 percent are not doubt shocked at the difference between those projected account balances and the current reality of what's actually in their retirement accounts today.

    An interesting way to think about the impact of assuming an overly optimistic interest rate is to look at the universal life insurance policies sold in the 1980s (when interest rates used in new business illustrations were 8 or 10 percent). Those projections showed policies that had cash values exceeding the specified amount pushing the policy into corridor death benefits in 30 or 35 years. Instead, the reality of lower crediting interest rates have resulted in these policies running out of cash value and lapsing.

    Low return expectations encourage more savings. Low return expectations should also help nudge those close to or in retirement to be conservative rather than aggressive with regard to their withdrawal rate.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nice article Wade. I particularly like your point about the difficult position an honest professional is put in. There have been multiple times when I have lost a potential or existing client because I refused to use overly optimist return assumptions and they either chose someone who did or worse, they decided to do-it-themselves because they thought they could do better on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Roy Jones, MBA, CFP®June 19, 2013 at 8:38 PM

    Wade, this 12% / 8% attack on Dave Ramsey is being taken out of context by people who are not familiar with his work and audience, and I feel it is doing more harm than good. Your comments about realistic rates of return and withdrawal rates are true and relevant to those who carefully budget, plan and have accumulated assets. However, someone close to retirement is not going to reach for a copy of "Total Money Makeover," invest in 4 stock mutual funds and set an 8% withdrawal rate. To imply this is the case is to grossly misrepresent Dave Ramsey's advice.

    Dave Ramsey uses 12% to motivate a large, indebted audience hungry for change to take action. It is an illustration that makes people ask, "what if?" Consider that millions of Americans are paying well over 12% in interest and fees on credit cards, and the opportunity cost of not living within their means is double or triple a 12% rate of return and will inevitably lead to real suffering. For Dave's indebted audience, 12% very likely undervalues the benefit of eliminating consumer debt or not financing expensive vehicles and investing instead. He rightly points out that only through ownership (equities), not debt (bonds), can one expect to beat inflation over long periods of time. He qualifies his investment and planning advice by recommending people talk to a professional since each person has different needs, time horizons and risk tolerances. He does not teach that stock mutual funds are like savings accounts with a 12% / 8% interest rate.

    In the business of advice, Dave Ramsey does the hardest job of all: He reaches out to countless broken humans who are shunned by professionals but desperate for help, and guides them from a very dark path to a hopeful future. There are thousands of people who have become financially self-reliant thanks to this man and will become "good" clients for the financial industry. As a financial planner focused on retirement, I have sent younger people who were in very bad shape to Financial Peace University who came back to my office after a few years completely transformed. This positive influence is stunning, it is rare, and it is sorely needed on a large scale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roy, thank you for sharing a more positive perspective on the issue.

      Delete
  19. Wade, good discussion on a tough topic. I too have taken the FPU class and have been a Class Coordinator for 5 years. So I've heard it all on this one topic, but witnessed the greater impact of this financial education class for over 600 folks. The end game is just not ROI, but a series of skills and a new outlook on money that most Americans never received in school or elsewhere. The stories are endless about the trouble folks are in and the emotional, physical and financial impact it creates. Marriages threatened, folks really hopeless for any good future.

    So what has Ramsey provided...the simple set of necessary skills to eventually succeed. Getting and staying out of debt. Money management for the remainder of one's life. Planning ahead, not reacting to the moment, etc. Yes other financial planners do the same, but we're talking about Dave right now. I would be thrilled if all folks taking FPU got their act together, stay on track and ended their days in good shape and not the poor house (see 2010 Census data on the growth of 'poor elderly' in the U.S.) Argue as we have about 12%, but I'll take an educated young adult leaving Ramsey's class any day who will have a good future.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I would appreciate your help. My wife's aunt is the principal of a church school. First rate Christian lady who can never sit down to dinner, even on Sunday, without taking calls from parents. Has build a first rate school but never finds time to learn about investments and investing.

    Personally I agree with Scott Burns that the 403b should have been sent to the barn after the various IRA's and 401k's were introduced, however, the insurance lobby had 13 years to sew up schools and professionals and it appears that with the high commissions, like it or not, they are here to stay. Easy to sell, difficult to defend.

    When Dr. Phelps started many years ago, her 403b was through the Baptist Convention Annuity Board. Four years ago her new school moved her account to what the Annuity Board is now called, Guidestone Capital Management. She is 70 and with all 3 indexes hitting all time highs, I encouraged her to end the crap-shoot with her deferred variable annuity and shop around for an immediate annuity. They asked me to research their options. I though it would be easy because her nephew works for Guidestone. He has worked there many years answering customer questions on the phone. Doesn't really know anything about the products. told me they are in fixed annuities, and then had me go to a Prospectus for their mutual funds when I asked about fees and expenses.

    No one I spoke with knew which mutual fund companies they work with, what Mortality & Expense charges she has been paying. Good honest people, but very poorly trained. I honestly can't decide if someone is getting rich and Guidestone is being duped, which could also be the case with Dave Ramsey, or it is a great product. Since the immediate annuity terms were established when she wasn't looking at that part of the deal, I suspect a 1035 Exchange is where I would be headed. Do you know anything about Guidestone Financial Group? Who is currently offering the best immediate annuity product for individual investors?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan, I'm sorry that I've never heard of the Guidestone Financial Group and so I can't provide any comment.

      About immediate annuities, www.immediateannuities.com is a reliable source of information. As I just checked, the payout rate on a $100,000 amount for a 70-year old woman is 7.35%. If you are a Vanguard customer, you are also able to access Income Solutions through their website. It is a great resource for information on immediate annuities.

      Sometimes those deferred variable annuities offer an attractive guaranteed return during the deferral period, but then offer an unattractive payout rate when annuitized. It's worth investigating other SPIA options, as she might be able to get more income that way even after paying any surrender charges.

      Best wishes.

      Delete
  21. APPLY FOR LOAN AT: (diamondloans@yandex. com)
    Do you need Business loan to refinance your company or Personal Loan?
    We give out loan to any individual and company at 3% interest rate yearly. with no upfront fee, We give out loan at a minimum in $5000 to a maximum of $10 million .
    we offer different services Below*
    Personal Loans (Secure and Unsecured )
    * Business Loans (Secure and Unsecured )
    * Home Improvement
    * Inventor Loans
    * Auto Loans
    * Mortgage Marriage
    * Health loan , etc.
    If interested, Do contact us through our email via: (diamondloans@yandex. com)

    REGARDS

    ReplyDelete