stevenkesslar

The Absolute Worst Predictions of 2023
PREDICTED BY: A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE …
CNBC, Oct. 10, 2022: “JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon warns U.S. likely to tip into recession in 6 to 9 months” Bloomberg, Oct. 17, 2022: “Forecast for US Recession Within Year Hits 100% in Blow to Biden” The Economist, Nov. 18, 2022: “Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023” Bloomberg, Dec. 6, 2022: “Wall Street Chorus Grows Louder Warning That 2023 Will Be Ugly” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 2, 2023: “Big Banks Predict Recession, Fed Pivot in 2023” Fox Business, Feb. 6, 2023: “Bank of America ‘still forecasting’ 2023 recession” POLITICO, April 4, 2023: “Jamie Dimon warns of new economic storms ahead” CNBC on April 12, 2023: “Fed expects banking crisis to cause a recession this year, minutes show”

The Absolute Worst Predictions of 2023
PREDICTED BY: A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE …
CNBC, Oct. 10, 2022: “JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon warns U.S. likely to tip into recession in 6 to 9 months” Bloomberg, Oct. 17, 2022: “Forecast for US Recession Within Year Hits 100% in Blow to Biden” The Economist, Nov. 18, 2022: “Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023” Bloomberg, Dec. 6, 2022: “Wall Street Chorus Grows Louder Warning That 2023 Will Be Ugly” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 2, 2023: “Big Banks Predict Recession, Fed Pivot in 2023” Fox Business, Feb. 6, 2023: “Bank of America ‘still forecasting’ 2023 recession” POLITICO, April 4, 2023: “Jamie Dimon warns of new economic storms ahead” CNBC on April 12, 2023: “Fed expects banking crisis to cause a recession this year, minutes show”

Actually, it's not near a record high as percentage of GDP.  As a percentage of disposal income it  is closer to a record low.


There's no question that some combination of "free money" (which means federal debt) and "enforced savings" (meaning I can't go to Paris or Disneyland) reduced pandemic consumer debt to a low, not a high, as a percentage of disposal income.  So we are BELOW where we were at the beginning of a long boom in the 1990's.  As a percentage of GDP, consumer debt is way below where it was during the Great Recession.  Consumer spending is not the only thing that fuels the US economy.  But it is the biggest thing.  So this is a big reason why we have not had a recession, and we may not have one.  Consumers are ready, willing, and able to spend.
The virtuous cycle in the 1990's was that the economy grew, people made more money, people paid more taxes, and some of that money was used to pay down federal debt.  Which helped the economy grow.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  So if we can somehow figure out how to do that again, we could create the same virtuous cycle.  
Carville was right about the bond market.  Which is as good a symbol as any for the beating heart of American investors.  If we want a good investment future, this is what we will somehow figure out.  While consumers have lots of money to spend and taxes to pay.  If we just party like it is 1999 and don't pay down debt, it will be much harder when we have the consumer debt levels we did in 1999.  Or 2009.
 

The Absolute Worst Predictions of 2023
PREDICTED BY: A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE …
CNBC, Oct. 10, 2022: “JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon warns U.S. likely to tip into recession in 6 to 9 months” Bloomberg, Oct. 17, 2022: “Forecast for US Recession Within Year Hits 100% in Blow to Biden” The Economist, Nov. 18, 2022: “Why a global recession is inevitable in 2023” Bloomberg, Dec. 6, 2022: “Wall Street Chorus Grows Louder Warning That 2023 Will Be Ugly” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 2, 2023: “Big Banks Predict Recession, Fed Pivot in 2023” Fox Business, Feb. 6, 2023: “Bank of America ‘still forecasting’ 2023 recession” POLITICO, April 4, 2023: “Jamie Dimon warns of new economic storms ahead” CNBC on April 12, 2023: “Fed expects banking crisis to cause a recession this year, minutes show”

Holy Smokes....Google is going to lay off 30,000 employees and replace them with AI.

Really wonderful series, very poignant and moving. The last scene (I won’t spoil it for those who haven’t seen it) brought tears to my eyes. 

We've come a long way from Philadelphia.
This interview with writer/creator Ron Nyswamer, which doesn't contain any spoilers,  was helpful to me in terms of understanding why the characters may have been developed the way they are.  This part in particular jumped off the page: 
I find Bomer's character to be morally ambiguous, at best.  But I think that may be the point.
Nyswamer was nominated for an Oscar way back in 1994 for writing Philadelphia.  That was clearly an effort to bring The Gays into the mainstream and create sympathy.  How could anyone not open their heart to Tom Hanks, with AIDS?  And it worked.  But my point is that it was also kind of one-dimensional.  We were moving victims.  Not the guys with the adorable boyfriends in romcoms.
What I am loving about LGBTQ cinema now is that we can be multi-dimensional, and all kinds of things.  Heroes, and assholes, and morally ambiguous people just trying to get by.  I loved Red White and Royal Blue because it was a sweet, if shallow, fairy tale about what the future for young Gay and Bi men can now be.  Fellow Travelers is anything but.  More like the opposite.  I think part of the statement Nyswamer was trying to make, which is okay to say now, is "Here's the shit we had to put up with.  Here's how it kind of warped people.  And yet, we were not beaten down.  We survived."
If that is part of his message, I find it noble in a very realistic way.  It's an emotionally piercing exploration of what McCarthyite homophobia and hypocrisy, and AIDS, did to our past.  And, proudly, we survived.  I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes.  Even if it is not as easy on the heart as Bomer and Bailey are on the eyes.  😉
 
 

Two different and interesting reactions.  Both of which are right in their own way.
I'll repeat what I said earlier in the thread.  The director wanted to make a point about how queers had all this horrible shit thrown at them.  And we survived, and still managed to love.  Even if sometimes it came out sideways.  Or, with AIDS, it sometimes killed us.
We now have many more options, and freedoms, for how we treat each other.  We won.  These two kind of look like Matt and Jonathon.
 

Two different and interesting reactions.  Both of which are right in their own way.
I'll repeat what I said earlier in the thread.  The director wanted to make a point about how queers had all this horrible shit thrown at them.  And we survived, and still managed to love.  Even if sometimes it came out sideways.  Or, with AIDS, it sometimes killed us.
We now have many more options, and freedoms, for how we treat each other.  We won.  These two kind of look like Matt and Jonathon.
 

Damn this show rips your heart out. It makes me so angry. All these people forced to live double lives, harassed for who and how they love. Some of it is so hard to watch. But so many beautiful scenes. In one episode Hawk and Skippy are naked in the living room, slow dancing to their favorite song. Gorgeous. Took my breath away. Seeing the series makes me wanna go read the book. I don't want to miss a single thing.

We've come a long way from Philadelphia.
This interview with writer/creator Ron Nyswamer, which doesn't contain any spoilers,  was helpful to me in terms of understanding why the characters may have been developed the way they are.  This part in particular jumped off the page: 
I find Bomer's character to be morally ambiguous, at best.  But I think that may be the point.
Nyswamer was nominated for an Oscar way back in 1994 for writing Philadelphia.  That was clearly an effort to bring The Gays into the mainstream and create sympathy.  How could anyone not open their heart to Tom Hanks, with AIDS?  And it worked.  But my point is that it was also kind of one-dimensional.  We were moving victims.  Not the guys with the adorable boyfriends in romcoms.
What I am loving about LGBTQ cinema now is that we can be multi-dimensional, and all kinds of things.  Heroes, and assholes, and morally ambiguous people just trying to get by.  I loved Red White and Royal Blue because it was a sweet, if shallow, fairy tale about what the future for young Gay and Bi men can now be.  Fellow Travelers is anything but.  More like the opposite.  I think part of the statement Nyswamer was trying to make, which is okay to say now, is "Here's the shit we had to put up with.  Here's how it kind of warped people.  And yet, we were not beaten down.  We survived."
If that is part of his message, I find it noble in a very realistic way.  It's an emotionally piercing exploration of what McCarthyite homophobia and hypocrisy, and AIDS, did to our past.  And, proudly, we survived.  I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes.  Even if it is not as easy on the heart as Bomer and Bailey are on the eyes.  😉
 
 

Sweetie.  You of all people should know we can be both smart and sexy.  Or, we can have our movie cake and eat our movie eye candy, too.  Or at least imagine what it would be like to eat it.  😉
This is an awesome thread.  I just read it, years after it started.  For the record, if I had to name one LGBTQ masterpiece I'd go for God's Own Country.  But below is my list of films that have not been mentioned once here, that I really enjoyed and I think are worth watching.
There's several articles out now about movies to watch after RWRB, if you want more of the same.  So this can be taken that way.  None will be on a Top 10 list, including my own.  I left out the great LGBTQ documentaries and dramas about serial killers.  These are all either Gay love stories, or moving stories about families that involve a Gay father or son or loved one.  Almost all have one form or another of serious eye candy, usually Straight guys playing Gay men.  Which I named in parentheses.
Akron  (both male leads)
Circuit (both male leads)
Defying Gravity (both male leads)
Eating Out (the whole series)
Giant Little Ones (too bad Darren Mann isn't Gay)
Jonathon (Jannis Niewohner, in anything.  Or nothing.)
Jongens / Boys (both male leads)
Kapoor & Sons (Sidharth Malhotra)
La Partida/ The Last Match (both male leads)
Le Clan/3 Dancing Slaves (the whole male cast, but especially Salim Kechiouche and Thomas Kumerchez in the other even sexier boat house scene compared to Maurice.  Unsolicited advice for RWRB sequel ..... steal this scene (we know TZP has a hairy ass), and the line "Rape me, but don't hurt me.")
Le Fil/ The String (Salim Kechiouche, again, in anything ...  ideally naked)
Longtime Companions  (the first time Dermot Mulroney broke my heart)
Man Of The Year (too bad Dirk Shafer never had an Amazon movie budget to worth with)
Maybe Maybe Not (not .......... but Til Schweiger is still pretty)
Parting Glances  (I still think John Bolger looks like a Ken doll)
Presque rien/Come Undone (both male leads)
Punch (Jordan Oosterhof knocked me out)
Rocket Man (I always thought Bernie Taupin was cute, and Jamie Bell is adorable)
Snails In The Rain (not as good as Yossi & Jagger, but Yoav Reuvani is even prettier)  
Someone Has To Die (which sucks, but they are still gorgeous)
Sommersturm (Kostja Ullmann, who also looked good getting whipped in Punish Me)
The Skinny (most of the cast)
The Thing About Harry (both male leads, and even more brainless and fun than RWRB)
Your Name Engraved Herein (both male leads)
Unless I missed it, none of these were mentioned.  Except for the last one, which was actually mentioned a few times in the thread, as "depressing."  So I included it to say I loved it.  I guess the depressing part is boy meets boy, boy loses boy, and boy never gets boy back.  Or does he?  I think that's left open to interpretation.  It is the most successful LGBTQ movie in Taiwan ever, as well as the most popular Taiwanese film of 2020, period.  I think it could be taken as a societal recognition of what was wrong in a world in which two guys couldn't just meet and get married when they were young, horny, and sexy as hell.  It's a better world now.  And the commercial success of this movie proves it, I think.
I'm guessing almost every one of these movies, especially the older ones, was very difficult to get funding for.  Hopefully this thread is just getting started. 😉
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Great points.  This should be factored in, too.

I have this running debate with my investment pen pal nephew about passive investing.  He tends to think that it sucks, and is damaging the market.  Because we are now all mindless investors, funneling oodles of money into whatever some algorithm thinks will make us the most money.  I tend to disagree.  There are worse capital allocation methods out there.  Xi Whiz castrated Jack Ma, even though the Chinese love him.  Just because he viewed Ma as a threat.  Passive investors are bankrolling the Jack Ma's of America and the West.  Forgive me for my bias, but this is why I'd bet on America and the West to win the tech race.  You could say we put our money where our mouth is.
I got kicked over to Schwab earlier this year due to an Ameritrade merger.  So it is interesting to see what is winning and losing since that happened.  Most of the tech stocks or indexes I hold are doing great:  SOXL, FNGU, AAPL, OLED.  Because they are mostly the big winners.  And I imagine tons of passive funds go into them, and make them even bigger winners.  I bought some other profitable tech stocks a few months ago that I thought were good buy on the dip opportunities, like ALGM and INTT.  They both have relatively low PE's, that are less than half their 3 to 5 year average PE.  But so far they've just gone down more.  So even within tech my impression is it's a narrow winner's market. 
As that first chart above suggests, this is building a big bubble, just like in the 90's.   At some point it will crash.  Meanwhile, enjoy the ride.  Like sex, it's always fun while it lasts.

Actually, it's not near a record high as percentage of GDP.  As a percentage of disposal income it  is closer to a record low.


There's no question that some combination of "free money" (which means federal debt) and "enforced savings" (meaning I can't go to Paris or Disneyland) reduced pandemic consumer debt to a low, not a high, as a percentage of disposal income.  So we are BELOW where we were at the beginning of a long boom in the 1990's.  As a percentage of GDP, consumer debt is way below where it was during the Great Recession.  Consumer spending is not the only thing that fuels the US economy.  But it is the biggest thing.  So this is a big reason why we have not had a recession, and we may not have one.  Consumers are ready, willing, and able to spend.
The virtuous cycle in the 1990's was that the economy grew, people made more money, people paid more taxes, and some of that money was used to pay down federal debt.  Which helped the economy grow.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  So if we can somehow figure out how to do that again, we could create the same virtuous cycle.  
Carville was right about the bond market.  Which is as good a symbol as any for the beating heart of American investors.  If we want a good investment future, this is what we will somehow figure out.  While consumers have lots of money to spend and taxes to pay.  If we just party like it is 1999 and don't pay down debt, it will be much harder when we have the consumer debt levels we did in 1999.  Or 2009.
 

That's true.  Household debt in nominal dollars is at a record high, but it is not at a record high in inflation adjusted terms or as a percentage of GDP (although it's pretty close).  What definitely is out of control in any terms is the Federal Government's debt level.  It's horrendous.  Worse than 1945 coming out of World War II.  

correct - American society, institutions, infrastructure, etc are in decline.
the broader economy as measured by traditional metrics is doing just fine.
there is no recession, there hasn't been a recession and recession is not in the foreseeable future 
the biggest threat to the American economy is political instability.  If something happens where the US is no longer regarded as the safe-haven for global investment & deposits, then all bets are off.  Be careful what you wish for.

So funny to see how some posters want to transition this thread discussion from a potential recession (that still hasn't happened) to being a discussion about personal and national debt.  I guess if you can't win the one argument then...presto chango...switch to a different topic.   
The national debt has been many decades in the making...under many administrations.  Neither the current nor the prior administration have been nor were concerned with the ever-burgeoning national debt. Shame on both of them.  I think the last time we had a balanced budget in the US was during the Clinton years.
In any case, let's stay on topic.  This thread is a discussion about if a recession is coming.

From yesterdays  New York Times -
of course the keyboard warriors here are much better informed. This is exactly what has been discussed here: perception vs statistical reality 
perhaps the naysayers here aren’t experiencing the same robust economy - personal choices have consequences 
 Economist Who Won’t Admit They Were Wrong

-ios
 
 

fact-check verb   investigate (an issue) in order to verify the facts. "I didn't fact-check the assertions in the editorial" Actually, Auggie, consumers are running on record net worth.  
The Average American’s Net Worth Jumped 37% in 3 Years
You've done an awesome job of persuading me you are emotionally committed to the idea that the end is near, the sky is falling, and of course there is, was, and will be a recession - always and forever, until the management changes.
That's the part that sucks.  The not so sucky part is that homeownership is at a record high - two in three Americans own their homes - and home values are up.  Most Americans have very stable and low fixed rate mortgages.  Or just own their home free and clear. Most data I read suggest young Americans have it the worst, and are pissed.  Like especially young families who want to buy homes at sky high interest rates.  That said, the net worth of Americans under 35 doubled in three years, from $16,000 to $39,000.  It can't suck that bad, can it?
This is one of the main reasons median net worth increased from $141,100 in 2019 to $192,900 in 2022.  Sucks, huh?  I know from past posts that you'll now pivot from "The sky is falling!" to "It's a bubble!"  Which one is it?  While you are figuring that out, I calculated that the additional $51,800 in net worth for a typical American would buy 3,985 Big Mac meals at $13 a pop.  Hungry, anyone?  That should keep the economy going for a while.
Consumer debt is lower than it has been for most of the last half century.  It was even lower during the pandemic, thanks to lots of enforced savings because people couldn't go to Italy.  So they just remodeled their home instead.  And of course add in all that government money. 
If the question is, "what might keep us out of a recession?", the ability of consumers to spend more would be one good answer.  To put it in relative terms, right now at 10 % of income consumer debt is LOWER than it was in the early 90's, at the start of the biggest bull market in our lifetimes.  By the end of that bull market consumer debt rose to 13 % of income.  Which of course partly helped fuel the boom.  If the future is anything like the past half century, consumer debt is below average and is more likely to go up than down now - fueling economic growth, corporate profits, and higher stock prices.
Now I'll put on my prognosticator hat.  What might drive growth and keep us out of a recession?  I have two answers, citing three people who are smarter than me.
When Stanley Druckenmiller was actually predicting the sky was falling after the 1987 crash, some voodoo stock chart guy named Glenn Neely predicted the biggest bull market ever.  Druckenmiller now admits he was wrong, but is also a lot richer.  Neely admits he was right, and is also a lot richer.  Sucks to be them, huh?  Neely called a one year bull market last June, predicting the S & P would hit something like 5500 in 2024.  So far he looks to be right.  He is also predicting the bull market will keep going for years, with corrections along the way.  His thesis is that capitalism and free markets are going to win.  Frankly, right now, I'm a bit pessimistic.  Vlad had a much better year than everyone thought he would.  That said, China and the US both seem to want to keep the global economy chugging.  So it's a scary and uncertain time.  But Neely could be right.
Druckenmiller could be, too.  I think his call on the big federal debt bomb is correct.  He said at a conference earlier this year that government can and probably will kick the can down the road until the 2030's, when the trust funds for things like Social Security run dry.  Meanwhile, he is big on NVDA and AI.  He said that booms like that can last for years.  It's too soon to tell.  But so far he is right.
I'm personally skeptical about AI.  I'm more worried about how it will shred jobs than how it will increase corporate profits.  That said, this video is worth watching.  It's the CEO of Nvidia.
The thing that worries me is his seemingly guileless tone when asked repeatedly about all the havoc AI could wreak.  He's more worried about his own company's survival than the impact of the technology on the world, or jobs. 
That said, if you watch nothing else watch the last four minutes or so.  To quote him, he says "It's a big deal, because it's a complete reinvention of the computer industry."  New networks, new switching, new computer design, new software, new data centers.  All driven by us stupid passive investors, who are piling money into NVDA and SOXL and their ilk.  It's capitalism, and it sucks, right?  But I could see this driving a boom and a bull market, just like in the 90's.
If we survive AI, things might be okay.  It could actually drive prosperity.  If that happens, like Druckenmiller, I hope the government spends some of the windfall capital gains taxes on reducing the deficit.  It happened in the 1990's.  It could happen again, if we could just agree.  Think about that while you're munching on your 3,985 Big Macs, Auggie.  😉

fact-check verb   investigate (an issue) in order to verify the facts. "I didn't fact-check the assertions in the editorial" Actually, Auggie, consumers are running on record net worth.  
The Average American’s Net Worth Jumped 37% in 3 Years
You've done an awesome job of persuading me you are emotionally committed to the idea that the end is near, the sky is falling, and of course there is, was, and will be a recession - always and forever, until the management changes.
That's the part that sucks.  The not so sucky part is that homeownership is at a record high - two in three Americans own their homes - and home values are up.  Most Americans have very stable and low fixed rate mortgages.  Or just own their home free and clear. Most data I read suggest young Americans have it the worst, and are pissed.  Like especially young families who want to buy homes at sky high interest rates.  That said, the net worth of Americans under 35 doubled in three years, from $16,000 to $39,000.  It can't suck that bad, can it?
This is one of the main reasons median net worth increased from $141,100 in 2019 to $192,900 in 2022.  Sucks, huh?  I know from past posts that you'll now pivot from "The sky is falling!" to "It's a bubble!"  Which one is it?  While you are figuring that out, I calculated that the additional $51,800 in net worth for a typical American would buy 3,985 Big Mac meals at $13 a pop.  Hungry, anyone?  That should keep the economy going for a while.
Consumer debt is lower than it has been for most of the last half century.  It was even lower during the pandemic, thanks to lots of enforced savings because people couldn't go to Italy.  So they just remodeled their home instead.  And of course add in all that government money. 
If the question is, "what might keep us out of a recession?", the ability of consumers to spend more would be one good answer.  To put it in relative terms, right now at 10 % of income consumer debt is LOWER than it was in the early 90's, at the start of the biggest bull market in our lifetimes.  By the end of that bull market consumer debt rose to 13 % of income.  Which of course partly helped fuel the boom.  If the future is anything like the past half century, consumer debt is below average and is more likely to go up than down now - fueling economic growth, corporate profits, and higher stock prices.
Now I'll put on my prognosticator hat.  What might drive growth and keep us out of a recession?  I have two answers, citing three people who are smarter than me.
When Stanley Druckenmiller was actually predicting the sky was falling after the 1987 crash, some voodoo stock chart guy named Glenn Neely predicted the biggest bull market ever.  Druckenmiller now admits he was wrong, but is also a lot richer.  Neely admits he was right, and is also a lot richer.  Sucks to be them, huh?  Neely called a one year bull market last June, predicting the S & P would hit something like 5500 in 2024.  So far he looks to be right.  He is also predicting the bull market will keep going for years, with corrections along the way.  His thesis is that capitalism and free markets are going to win.  Frankly, right now, I'm a bit pessimistic.  Vlad had a much better year than everyone thought he would.  That said, China and the US both seem to want to keep the global economy chugging.  So it's a scary and uncertain time.  But Neely could be right.
Druckenmiller could be, too.  I think his call on the big federal debt bomb is correct.  He said at a conference earlier this year that government can and probably will kick the can down the road until the 2030's, when the trust funds for things like Social Security run dry.  Meanwhile, he is big on NVDA and AI.  He said that booms like that can last for years.  It's too soon to tell.  But so far he is right.
I'm personally skeptical about AI.  I'm more worried about how it will shred jobs than how it will increase corporate profits.  That said, this video is worth watching.  It's the CEO of Nvidia.
The thing that worries me is his seemingly guileless tone when asked repeatedly about all the havoc AI could wreak.  He's more worried about his own company's survival than the impact of the technology on the world, or jobs. 
That said, if you watch nothing else watch the last four minutes or so.  To quote him, he says "It's a big deal, because it's a complete reinvention of the computer industry."  New networks, new switching, new computer design, new software, new data centers.  All driven by us stupid passive investors, who are piling money into NVDA and SOXL and their ilk.  It's capitalism, and it sucks, right?  But I could see this driving a boom and a bull market, just like in the 90's.
If we survive AI, things might be okay.  It could actually drive prosperity.  If that happens, like Druckenmiller, I hope the government spends some of the windfall capital gains taxes on reducing the deficit.  It happened in the 1990's.  It could happen again, if we could just agree.  Think about that while you're munching on your 3,985 Big Macs, Auggie.  😉

A thoughtful article by Fortune on the US economic outlook for 2024 and their take on the economic pessimists that keep predicting the recession that never comes. 
 
Economic pessimists’ bet on a 2023 recession failed. Why are they doubling down in 2024?
STOCKS.APPLE.COM Despite the economy’s strength, there remains a reluctance to recognize a soft landing.  

Looking back on this thread there are a number of smart people who predicted doom and gloom, which has yet to materialize.  Point is, no one knows.
 
Slow and steady wins the race in investing. I’ve stopped trying to predict anything. Dollar cost averaging is my strategy. 

But eventually he'll be right. Just like I predict my Buffalo Bills to win the super bowl every year. I can't wait to say see I told you so!

Yes...but...people want to live much larger today than they did 60 years ago.  The typical household has a much bigger house than before and on a much bigger lot.  Two or three cars instead of one.  People take much more luxurious vacations now than before.  A week at the cottage will no longer do.  It needs to be at least two weeks during the summer in Italy and then a one week winter cruise to the Caribbean... plus a long weekend in Las Vegas somewhere in between. 
I wonder if an average one salary household could sustain a family today if they lived like folks did in the 50's/60's: in a 1500 sq ft bungalow on a 5,000 sq ft lot.  One car and a one-week summer vacation on the lake up north in a small rented cottage.