american anesthesiology/mednax

[Arch Guillotti]

The only inputs are:
--total income per year of all MDs in the last few years (you are correct I meant total comp and not salary)
--desired total comp to stay on with american
--% of docs that are partners

OK. Obviously salary and total compensation can be completely different.

Besides, their revenue is guaranteed to be higher per patient than the group they buy out since they have higher commercial rates.

Yeah but I would imagine that they would have to negotiate the new rate first.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[2ndyear]

So, if Mednax came around to your group (or future group) and offered you $400K for 5 years plus $1.2-2 million buyout NOW what would you say? What if the last negotiations with the hospital had not gone well? What if they want to cut your stipend or increase your services? What if the CEO decides to go with another group or an AMC anyway in 3-4 years?

The fact of the matter is that a bird in the hand with millions of dollars vs WHAT IF down the road is a tempting offer. Watch the video:

This. I am always asking myself (and partners) what the end game is. I'm in a small private group, fair amount of subsidy and rocky contract renewals. Will we be around in 10 years with ACO's, and everything else coming? Is 5 years reasonable? What do we get when we make it to 5 years, a cookie? Personally I can see the writing on the wall clear as day. Either take something now or totally give it away in the near future.

 

[GA8314]

So, if Mednax came around to your group (or future group) and offered you $400K for 5 years plus $1.2-2 million buyout NOW what would you say? What if the last negotiations with the hospital had not gone well? What if they want to cut your stipend or increase your services? What if the CEO decides to go with another group or an AMC anyway in 3-4 years?

The fact of the matter is that a bird in the hand with millions of dollars vs WHAT IF down the road is a tempting offer. Watch the video:

I didn't think Mednax was interested in groups with subsidies.

 

[pgg]

So, if Mednax came around to your group (or future group) and offered you $400K for 5 years plus $1.2-2 million buyout NOW what would you say?

Interesting question.

Given the nature of my current employer, obviously such an offer couldn't be made to me. But it's interesting to compare it to what I've got, and imagine if the offer was made to me, would I take it?

Really depends on what Mednax would be expecting me to do during those 5 years.

You're describing the equivalent of a guaranteed $640-800K/year for 5 years to be Mednax's employee, albeit with about 1/2 up front. I guess they'd want to get their pound of flesh back, and so that job would be something along the lines of 4:1 supervision of some surly retread assassins shuffled from the last jobs they got fired from while covering preop clinic, airway pages, and OB on the side for 80 hours per week, with no ability to walk away.

Compared to my current job, with no direction/supervision at all, just some generalized "help out if needed" responsibilities some days, and doing my own cases other days, for about 40 hours per week, in a very malpractice friendly environment. Counting what the Navy's putting into my defined benefit plan (aka pension) the bottom line is I'm earning about 1/2 Mednax's offer for 1/2 the hours and 1/10th the liability, with no ability to walk away.

No thanks, Mednax.

Now, if I were posting this from Syria, maybe I'd answer differently ...

 

[BLADEMDA]

I didn't think Mednax was interested in groups with subsidies.

Wrong. AMCs are buying groups getting subsidies.

 

[Man o War]

I didn't think Mednax was interested in groups with subsidies.

Oh my god yes. They love those groups. Where AMCs have it right is they will get administration to agree on overhead plus a percentage on top. So, if the hospital screws the pooch on OR scheduling and make it a money losing, inefficient cluster for anesthesia, the AMC still gets their guaranteed profit margin. So much smarter than the traditional flat subsidies many groups negotiate. So the AMC never has to be the bad guy and say no we can't staff that room/service line. And, they don't have to go back to the table every time a new service or OR is added. We could all learn a lot from these bastards.

 

[aneftp]

Wrong. AMCs are buying groups getting subsidies.

Yup. AMCs are moving aggressively even courting potentially money losing contracts all because of the drive for market share. They feel they can make up the difference with private insurer increase reimbursements because of market share.

Mednax (and Amsurg/Sheridan and Team Health etc) are moving rapidly. I was just shocked when one of my friends who sold out to on the the big 3 players was discussing what these AMCs strategy is. I didn't think they would attempt to buyout even groups with subsidies.

Market share is the strategy here. Of course they will try to take the contract for nothing. But if they can't. Dangling $500k per partner with groups with subsidies usually can reel in some fish just because many older partners are tired with dealing with negotiations with hospital management.

 

[Mman]

Yeah but I would imagine that they would have to negotiate the new rate first.

No, they are already have contracts with private insurers. There is nothing to negotiate. The day they take over they send out bills that are paid under their current agreement. It doesn't matter if the previous group at that location had terrible rates with Blue Cross, those Blue Cross cases are instantly billed at American's rate of approximately $140-150 a unit (my guess, though probably pretty close) on day 1.

 

[ERRES2288]

So what is the general consenses on how the hospital administration is liking AMCs? Are they usually pretty happy with them or wish the private group was still there? I'd imagine most docs getting more complacent and lazier after the buyout.

 

[Planktonmd]

So what is the general consenses on how the hospital administration is liking AMCs? Are they usually pretty happy with them or wish the private group was still there? I'd imagine most docs getting more complacent and lazier after the buyout.

AMCS have the following advantages that hospital administrators love: 1- They wear suits 2- They love meetings and committees 3- They have spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations for everything 4- They understand that it's never about the patients 5- They keep those terrible physicians under control and quite.

 

[pgg]

No, they are already have contracts with private insurers. There is nothing to negotiate. The day they take over they send out bills that are paid under their current agreement. It doesn't matter if the previous group at that location had terrible rates with Blue Cross, those Blue Cross cases are instantly billed at American's rate of approximately $140-150 a unit (my guess, though probably pretty close) on day 1.

Every once in a while I read something about the different rates groups vs AMCs have negotiated with different insurance cos, and I wonder if we really wouldn't be better off with a single payer system and a bullet in the back of the head of every med ins co executive.

Blasphemy, I know.

 

[Planktonmd]

Every once in a while I read something about the different rates groups vs AMCs have negotiated with different insurance cos, and I wonder if we really wouldn't be better off with a single payer system and a bullet in the back of the head of every med ins co executive.

Blasphemy, I know.

A single payer system is the only viable solution.

 

[Carbocation1]

Medscape Business of Medicine
Single-Payer System: Why It Would Save US Healthcare
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/851265

 

[Mman]

So what is the general consenses on how the hospital administration is liking AMCs? Are they usually pretty happy with them or wish the private group was still there? I'd imagine most docs getting more complacent and lazier after the buyout.

Everything I've heard is that they grow to dislike them. Most hospitals don't exactly enjoy dealing with a publicly traded multibillion dollar corporation when they want to negotiate things. There is just no wiggle room with them. It's a house of cards. The hospital initially enjoys the power point presentations. Over time they get sick of dealing with somebody in a suit and not just being able to talk to the doc in the OR and work things out.

 

[aneftp]

AMCS have the following advantages that hospital administrators love: 1- They wear suits 2- They love meetings and committees 3- They have spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations for everything 4- They understand that it's never about the patients 5- They keep those terrible physicians under control and quite.

Totally agree. It's all about the presentation.
You can make data shifted whatever way you want.

Like the current trend to "improve OR start times". Just BS. We all know that. They will come in and say new group in previous hospital in room time has improved from 69% to 88% on time first starts.

But they neglect to tell hospital administrators that the previous anesthesia group wasn't responsible for the late starts! It was patient being late/surgeons late etc.

This is how smoke and mirrors work with these presentations. I've seen a few of them. Just so classic how AMC can improve quality.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Everything I've heard is that they grow to dislike them. Most hospitals don't exactly enjoy dealing with a publicly traded multibillion dollar corporation when they want to negotiate things. There is just no wiggle room with them. It's a house of cards. The hospital initially enjoys the power point presentations. Over time they get sick of dealing with somebody in a suit and not just being able to talk to the doc in the OR and work things out.

You mean the CEO misses being able to screw the anesthesia docs over with ease. Now, the CEO and CFO just can't sit on their high horses and make demands without their being consequences.

 

[Mman]

You mean the CEO misses being able to screw the anesthesia docs over with ease. Now, the CEO and CFO just can't sit on their high horses and make demands without their being consequences.

No. I mean you can't get anything done. In PP it's a cooperative model with a hospital. Help us out here and we'll help you out there. With an AMC, it's a talk to the suit 1000 miles away because I don't make the decisions sort of discussion.

 

[deleted162650]

How's this for a plan: You sellout your group for a large upfront sum and then some reduced salary for 3-5 years as described above. For those years while an indentured servant to the AMC you gradually begin to provide crappier and crappier service (nothing that compromises patient care but little things here and there that irritate surgeons and interrupts the smooth workflow of the OR). Surgeons begin to complain. You start to gripe about not being able to fix it because now it's the suits calling the shots. Hospital admin gets fed up and come contract negotiation time you swipe back the contract laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[user3]

A single payer system is the only viable solution.

Plankton,
how fair do you think rates would end up being under such a system, especially for anesthesiologists?

 

[Planktonmd]

Plankton,
how fair do you think rates would end up being under such a system, especially for anesthesiologists?

We will make less money but eventually we will work less because in a single payer system many of the unnecessary procedures we currently do will decrease, like all these bogus back surgeries and inappropriate joint replacements for example.

 

[Mman]

How's this for a plan: You sellout your group for a large upfront sum and then some reduced salary for 3-5 years as described above. For those years while an indentured servant to the AMC you gradually begin to provide crappier and crappier service (nothing that compromises patient care but little things here and there that irritate surgeons and interrupts the smooth workflow of the OR). Surgeons begin to complain. You start to gripe about not being able to fix it because now it's the suits calling the shots. Hospital admin gets fed up and come contract negotiation time you swipe back the contract laughing all the way to the bank.

It's a reasonable plan, but AMCs make you sign a non compete clause that is probably pretty enforceable for the same hospital. Not sure how you get around that.

 

[user3]

We will make less money but eventually we will work less because in a single payer system many of the unnecessary procedures we currently do will decrease, like all these bogus back surgeries and inappropriate joint replacements for example.

If single payer implies universal Medicare, current CF's ($22/unit) do not seem like reasonable reimbursements for the specialty...

 

[repititionition]

If single payer implies universal Medicare, current CF's ($22/unit) do not seem like reasonable reimbursements for the specialty...

But this isn't what it implies.

Look at Canada: the median anesthesiology income under their single-payer system is -very- near that of the US, and they're working fewer hours per week.

The hate for SP comes, largely, from people that do not understand it. The work of vilifying a "government takeover of healthcare" was well executed.

 

[sevoflurane]

Man there is a lot of doom and gloom on here lately.

You can still find excellent gigs throughout the USA. You might have to sacrifice location at first, but after you build your nest... you are free to go to your dream location.
Anesthesia is an amazing specialty if you pour your heart into it--> which is easy to do. You don't have to work under the ACT model. Plenty of gigs out there that don't use them.

Personally, I have fun at work nearly every day I'm there. Love my colleagues (both in and out of the anesthesia department).

Let's not forget this.

 

[Baller MD]

Man there is a lot of doom and gloom on here lately.

You can still find excellent gigs throughout the USA. You might have to sacrifice location at first, but after you build your nest... you are free to go to your dream location.
Anesthesia is an amazing specialty if you pour your heart into it--> which is easy to do. You don't have to work under the ACT model. Plenty of gigs out there that don't use them.

Personally, I have fun at work nearly every day I'm there. Love my colleagues (both in and out of the anesthesia department).

Let's not forget this.

Not everyone can get a job like yours.

 

[Carbocation1]

Met someone from Russia at my school and asked about their healthcare system. In Russia's socialized system, salaries of specialists that save lives/prevent death like gas, onc, cards, gen. surg. etc. are among the lowest in the country, on par with secretaries/janitors. However, PP cosmetic derm, plastics, and even dentists are all upper class.

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/18-10-2010/115411-doctors_russia_usa-0/

 

[sevoflurane]

Not everyone can get a job like yours.

Good jobs don't come on a silver platter and wrapped up in a red bow.
It takes a good amount of planning, searching/researching, networking, willingness to move on a dime, and of course some good 'ol fashioned luck. If you know what state you want to work in, then preemptively get your medical license up and running before you apply.
You also need to be a good candidate-normal person-and bring something to the group you are joining.

Failing to prepare is preparing to fail. UTSW and Ben Franklin. Good luck.

 

[criticalelement]

Good jobs don't come on a silver platter and wrapped up in a red bow.
It takes a good amount of planning, searching/researching, networking, willingness to move on a dime, and of course some good 'ol fashioned luck. If you know what state you want to work in, then preemptively get your medical license up and running before you apply.
You also need to be a good candidate-normal person-and bring something to the group you are joining.

Failing to prepare is preparing to fail. UTSW and Ben Franklin. Good luck.

Youre a complete idiot!

 

[sevoflurane]

Youre a complete idiot!

Haha!
Having a bad day?
Well then, good luck to you too angry pants.!

 

[Mad Jack]

The bigger issue is what happens when that initial 5yr contract expires. They have to give you decent terms up front so you'll sign on the dotted line. Once that's up however don't expect they're just gonna keep giving you 400k outta the goodness of their hearts. The buyout money is basically just a big pay day loan and unless you're a partner w/ a bunch of employee docs under you it doesn't make a whole lotta sense (especially if you plan to work longer than 5 years).

But the payouts, particularly the larger ones, make a hell of a lot of sense, particularly if you invest them. A 4M payout after taxes, comes to $2,378,694.70. Invest that and don't touch it for the next five years, and you'll have $3,495,082.91. Draw that down at a 4% safe withdrawal rate while keeping it invested and you've got a safe $139,803.32 supplement to your income that automatically adjusts for inflation and is only taxed at the capital gains rate (15%) for the rest of your life. So even if they only cut you a contract for 250k, you're still pulling just shy of 400k due to your investment income.

Smaller buyouts don't give you as much of a long-term benefit, but the financial side of things (and just the security of having a seven figure nest egg basically handed to you) make 2M or higher buyouts make a hell of a lot of financial sense.

 

[sevoflurane]

I have never heard of a 4 mil buyout.
That would certainly be nice.

That being said, on 4 mil, you only get taxed on 20% (my understanding is that you are not taxed on the ACA 3.8%).

So on 4 mil, the post tax number you take to the bank is 3.2 mil.

I've seen buyout amounts of 1-2.5 million.

As you mentioned, a big advantage of the buyout is the ability to invest that amount immediately and see it grow. Also, your high end marginal tax rate drops significantly as you accept a lower salary.

 

[deleted126335]

The answer to the question about the wisdom of accepting a buyout or not is, "It depends".

Some groups have zero choice and no buyout offer.
Egalitarian groups with equal partners often get five years of security and MAYBE a one time small to decent premium for surrendering their ownership.
Non-Egalitarian groups with small numbers of super partners, it almost always makes sense only for the super partners.
younger docs less incentive than older docs.

Good gigs are hard to find. Lots harder than for those who were looking a decade ago. Pretending otherwise is just dishonest.

 

[Man o War]

Youre a complete idiot!

What did he say there that is idiotic? He's spot on actually.

 

[pgg]

$2,378,694.70. Invest that and don't touch it for the next five years, and you'll have $3,495,082.91.

Guaranteed 8% returns for 5 years running is a touch optimistic.

 

[Mad Jack]

Guaranteed 8% returns for 5 years running is a touch optimistic.

How in the hell is 8% optimistic? Ten year returns on the S&P through 2014 have averaged 9.61%, 20 year returns 11.28%, and 30 year 12.7%. The absolute worst realize long-term results I can quickly find occur at 15 years (7.01%) which is not great but certainly wouldn't have crippled you financially. Invest in S&P market-tracking funds or ETFs, and overall, your returns should clear 8%, averaged over almost any 10 or 30 year historical period available, unless you're damn near the unluckiest person alive and put your money in right before a crash and take it out right after a crash in bulk. Don't time the market. Don't play like you're some Wall Street genius. Watch and wait, keep your day job, and don't touch your money any more than you have to when it's on a dive.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm

 

[pgg]

I agree with everything you just wrote except the implied faith that returns in any given 5-year period will average 8%.

5 years is too short a period to be assuming anything at all about market returns.

Aside from that, it also represents a 100% equity allocation, but that's another issue.

 

[IlDestriero]

I don't think 8% is too optimistic, but you might be more conservative with your golden egg.

 

[Mad Jack]

I agree with everything you just wrote except the implied faith that returns in any given 5-year period will average 8%.

5 years is too short a period to be assuming anything at all about market returns.

Aside from that, it also represents a 100% equity allocation, but that's another issue.

Given that this is a windfall, it should be applied to 100% equity to maximize returns. Any 5 year period, that's hard to say- but historically, your chances of getting at least 8% aren't all that terrible. Even if we dialed it down to 7%, that's really not so bad. Even a 7% annual return is enough to keep up with inflation (and actually beat it by a good margin at current rates- inflation has been crazy low as of late) if you're doing a 4% withdrawal rate. I guess how good these numbers look and how willing you are to play them largely depends on how close you are to retirement and how risk-averse you are.

 

[Mad Jack]

I don't think 8% is too optimistic, but you might be more conservative with your golden egg.

If you've been investing wisely from the start of your career, this shouldn't be your nest egg- it should be a windfall.

 

[caligas]

Met someone from Russia at my school and asked about their healthcare system. In Russia's socialized system, salaries of specialists that save lives/prevent death like gas, onc, cards, gen. surg. etc. are among the lowest in the country, on par with secretaries/janitors. However, PP cosmetic derm, plastics, and even dentists are all upper class.

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/18-10-2010/115411-doctors_russia_usa-0/

Gas saving lives? Only an occasional trauma patient and the patients that the crna tries to assassinate.

 

[criticalelement]

How in the hell is 8% optimistic? Ten year returns on the S&P through 2014 have averaged 9.61%, 20 year returns 11.28%, and 30 year 12.7%. The absolute worst realize long-term results I can quickly find occur at 15 years (7.01%) which is not great but certainly wouldn't have crippled you financially. Invest in S&P market-tracking funds or ETFs, and overall, your returns should clear 8%, averaged over almost any 10 or 30 year historical period available, unless you're damn near the unluckiest person alive and put your money in right before a crash and take it out right after a crash in bulk. Don't time the market. Don't play like you're some Wall Street genius. Watch and wait, keep your day job, and don't touch your money any more than you have to when it's on a dive.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm

You are the man above poster. I was just telling someone this a few weeks ago when i looked at historic s and p data.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Given that this is a windfall, it should be applied to 100% equity to maximize returns. Any 5 year period, that's hard to say- but historically, your chances of getting at least 8% aren't all that terrible. Even if we dialed it down to 7%, that's really not so bad. Even a 7% annual return is enough to keep up with inflation (and actually beat it by a good margin at current rates- inflation has been crazy low as of late) if you're doing a 4% withdrawal rate. I guess how good these numbers look and how willing you are to play them largely depends on how close you are to retirement and how risk-averse you are.

WTF? 100% Equity exposure for someone over 55? Regardless of whether one views the cash from a buyout as nest-egg vs windfall the equity portion of a portfolio should remain on target. In fact, the more money you have in the bank the less you need to risk a market downturn with your money. Bernstein calls this "you have won the game" and he recommends REDUCING market exposure.

Once your best earning years are behind instead in front of you it is foolish to ever be 100% invested in equities as your risk/reward curve is out of whack.
By maintaining Bonds/CDs/Cash you have money available to re-invest in equities when the market gets ugly. By maintaining a safety-net in cash/bonds/ CDs the senior investor/Anesthesiologist is ready to deal with up and down markets.

When you are young (under the age of 40) a high equity exposure like 90/10 or 80/20 may be reasonable ( I still recommend a lower equity exposure like 70/30) depending on your ability to handle market down turns. Some of us had 7 figure portfolios cut in half circa the market crash in 2008. Do you know how hard it is to watch your hard earned money evaporate over a few months? Most investors can't stomach the pain and even I didn't invest any more hard earned cash near the bottom (I stopped buying about 600 points before the bottom) because the losses seemed to never end.

One really needs at least two major market corrections to fully grasp his/her comfort level with equity exposure. I've been through several over the past two decades and am quite comfortable NEVER being 100% invested in equities.

Equities are fully valued right now and even though I did invest $200,00 more during the correction this past summer I remain skeptical of earnings growth going forward. There is no way I would go 100% "in" at these valuations.

I'm a firm believer in a diversified portfolio of domestic and foreign equities (stocks, mutual funds, ETFs) combined with Bonds, CDs, Cash, Real estate, Gold, etc. The diversified investor is the winning investor over the long run.

(one of the BEST BOOKS for under $10 is posted below- READ IT)

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Clearly, the investor is NOT being adequately compensated for the risk in a 100% stock portfolio.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Look at this graph of $100 invested in 1971. This clearly shows why you don't need to be 100% invested in equities to get good returns with less risk.

 

[pgg]

Given that this is a windfall, it should be applied to 100% equity to maximize returns.

This is debatable. I'm not saying it's wrong, but you state it with the certainty of fact, when the truth is it's your opinion.

My opinion is that a better approach to investing any windfall is to step back, reassess your entire position relative to your financial goals, and adjust your overall asset allocation accordingly.

From this perspective, a windfall would abruptly move you closer to your financial goals, and reduce your need to accept risk to meet those goals. Consequently, a more conservative asset allocation would be prudent. Not a more aggressive allocation. Certainly not 100% equity.

With a multimillion dollar post-tax deposit, you might even decide you've won the game and can quit playing. In that case, 100% equity makes even less sense.


It appears that the basic points we disagree on are
1) you see a windfall as a reason to take more risk, and I see a windfall as an opportunity to take less risk.
2) you think 8%/year is a reasonable expectation for a 5 year investment horizon

I made the case for (1) above ... and as for (2) ... well, dr_doze posted this link recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-graphic.html?_r=0

Since 1920, there are a LOT of 5-year periods that have zero or negative real returns.

 

[Mad Jack]

This is debatable. I'm not saying it's wrong, but you state it with the certainty of fact, when the truth is it's your opinion.

My opinion is that a better approach to investing any windfall is to step back, reassess your entire position relative to your financial goals, and adjust your overall asset allocation accordingly.

From this perspective, a windfall would abruptly move you closer to your financial goals, and reduce your need to accept risk to meet those goals. Consequently, a more conservative asset allocation would be prudent. Not a more aggressive allocation. Certainly not 100% equity.

With a multimillion dollar post-tax deposit, you might even decide you've won the game and can quit playing. In that case, 100% equity makes even less sense.


It appears that the basic points we disagree on are
1) you see a windfall as a reason to take more risk, and I see a windfall as an opportunity to take less risk.
2) you think 8%/year is a reasonable expectation for a 5 year investment horizon

I made the case for (1) above ... and as for (2) ... well, dr_doze posted this link recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-graphic.html?_r=0

Since 1920, there are a LOT of 5-year periods that have zero or negative real returns.

I suppose a large part of the difference in perspective comes from the fact that I'm 35 years from retirement age, and thus much more comfortable with risk. I'd probably be far more risk averse 20 years from now. I still stand by the buyout being a solid move, whether you put it 50/50, 100/0, 75/25, or whatever combination of stocks to bonds and other less volatile assets you choose.

 

[BLADEMDA]

PGG,

If we pick the period like 1961-1981 here were the returns:

After accounting for dividends, inflation, taxes and fees, $10,000 invested at the end of 1961 would have shrunk to $6,600 by 1981


“Market returns are more volatile than most people realize,” Mr. Easterling said, “even over periods as long as 20 years.”

 

[BLADEMDA]

I suppose a large part of the difference in perspective comes from the fact that I'm 35 years from retirement age, and thus much more comfortable with risk. I'd probably be far more risk averse 20 years from now. I still stand by the buyout being a solid move, whether you put it 50/50, 100/0, 75/25, or whatever combination of stocks to bonds and other less volatile assets you choose.

I strongly recommend you do some reading on this subject. 100% equity exposure is very risk/very volatile vs the generated returns. A diversified portfolio of 70/30 would actually serve you better going forward and allow you cash to rebalance during severe market corrections in order to maintain your allocation.
Investing all your money into equities 6-7 years into a bull market is probably not the best idea.

At age 35 I fully understand the feeling to be 100% in equities and if your portfolio is small it probably won't matter much as new money flows into your brokerages allowing cost averaging over many years. That said, some allocation to cash in anticipation of a pullback (like we had this year) or an even bigger market correction in the next few months gives you ammunition to buy equities much cheaper than they are priced at today.