Only 5% of men who contact women in Russia/Ukraine ever get on a plane?

[andrewfi]

Skiingandrunning, as you probably do not know, the ability to be able to render a sensible picture from limited data is a useful skill, some do not have it or understand how to do it. This is a VERY simple model indeed.

If one takes assumptions that can be sanity checked and used objectively and combined with hard(er) numeric data that can be relied upon to a greater degree than a basic assumption then one can build a useful picture.

So, the question that you might want to ask of yourself is this: Which of the variables did you find to be unacceptable?
If there are any variables that are unacceptable to you then what values would you substitute in their place and what does the output look like when you perform the substitution?
Given your comments above I take it that you have no objections to the model itself but rather to the variables I used so, change 'em, go wild!

One reason that I went through the modelling exercise, which took MUCH longer to type up than to build, was so that others might be able to test their own assumptions and see where they end up.

Interestingly we can see that the 'sensible' range of results is close to the 5% general assumption with, in my opinion, a likelihood of being less than 5% flying being greater than more than 5% flying hence my conclusion above.

Rather than knocking why not try the tool out for yourself based upon your best guesses and see where you end up. I bet it is not going to be far from what I showed.

If you don't understand the numbers don't knock those who do.
You might, erroneously, claim that I am some kind of 'armchair expert' but you kinda miss the point. A question was raised, opinions were given and I tried to find a way to render a more complete picture of those opinions. A mind experiment if you like.
I now know that if a person tried to claim that a much higher figure than 5% applied that I would need strong convincing to think his opinion carried any merit.
If you look at the model you will see that the only issue that would have a significant impact upon the output is whether the 5% figure presented by Elena's models for a success rate for her clients was significantly different to that which actually holds and that'd need for EM to be either very uncharacteristic for the business as a whole or they told us a deliberate untruth - neither is likely to be true. EM carries one of the largest databases of women in the FSU MOB biz and if they were going to lie about the proportion of women who get married it would suit their purposes much better to claim a higher success rate.

That, my friend is analysis for you.

[Muzh_1]

Ahem, that's just your opinion, not an analysis. 

[andrewfi]

Muzh, what I did was analysis:
A consideration of the available information with a view to being able to produce an picture that supports, or otherwise, an opinion or case.

One analyses the data, the separate elements of the issue, to produce information and, hopefully, generate knowledge.

In this case I wanted to help understand whether this 5% figure thrown around makes sense. As we can see, unless one makes assumptions that are widely different to what we understand from observation over quite a long time, we can see that the figure is probably not far wide of the mark.

So, what he have here, in plain English, is an analysis of available data and reasonable assumptions that tends to support the opinion that the number of men from the USA getting on a big silver bird is about 5%.

This helps in discussing the issue because having identified the variables we can discuss the matter objectively. For example, do you agree with the opinion held by others, that about 5% of US men seeking a Russian bride get on a plane or not?
If not, which of the variables that we have used would you feel need to be changed?
What should the new variable values be?
Do the new variables that you suggest pass a sanity test? (for example, you are not assuming that ALL US men get on a plane or that NONE do)

Please note, that does not mean that I suggest or agree that the number IS 5% because I know that EM told us that their success rate for women in getting married is 5% so I understand that whatever the true figure for plane ticket buyers is, it ain't 5%!

So, Muzh, what do YOU think the figure might be and what assumptions do you make in your analysis that supports your opinion?

By the way, an opinion unless supported by some form of analysis, is only a fantasy!

Definitions:

a·nal·y·sis
   /əˈnæləsɪs/ Show Spelled[uh-nal-uh-sis] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ses  /-ˌsiz/ show spelled">Show Spelled[-seez] Show IPA.
1.
the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements ( opposed to synthesis).
2.
this process as a method of studying the nature of something or of determining its essential features and their relations: the grammatical analysis of a sentence.
3.
a presentation, usually in writing, of the results of this process: The paper published an analysis of the political situation.
4.
a philosophical method of exhibiting complex concepts or propositions as compounds or functions of more basic ones.

All four of these definitions would support what I was doing in my post upthread as being analysis.

[Vinnvinny]

It all very well do sums from available data but one should question first how this data was obtained. EM has been going over 10 years and presumably many thousands of ladies have come and gone. Did EM contact every one of them, I doubt it. 5% might be right, it might be wrong. It’s somewhere between 0% and 100% we can be sure of that, anything else is guesswork.

I wonder what percentage of ladies get married to a WM on the global FSU focused pay and play platforms? My guess is around .00005% but it could be less. Way to go.

[dbneeley]

Andrew's analysis is, as seems typical, more than a little flawed. Trying to dress things up with arithmetic does not make the figures any more reliable.

For example, let us presume that Elena's Models' figure is accurate for their particular client base. (Since so many ladies are on multiple sites, too, they do not know if some of those who remove their listings may have married through other resources; nor does it seem to include ladies who wind up marrying locally simply because they happened to meet someone agreeable while they were open to marriage abroad, to give just two other circumstances).

Additionally, it is well known that a few ladies on any site get a disproportionate percentage of the contacts. On the other hand, some who get very few initial contacts still are visited. My wife was contacted by very few (three or four, if memory serves). Two of us visited, and I promptly took her out of the market. What does that sort of experience do for the statistics? Assuming an equal distribution of contacts vs. visits is completely bogus, unless you can support such assumptions.

That does not mean the same percentages would hold up for other agencies, nor for other methods of meeting that do not involve agencies at all.

In other words, whether you dress things up with spurious math or not, the truth is that it is (as skiinandrunning said) a WAG. It's simply a case of the GIGO (garbage in/garbage out) principle at work.

Still, for discussion sake, I can't see that it hurts to assume the actual numbers if they could be discovered at all may be similar. It's well understood that many men who may seem interested never wind up actually traveling--look at some of the long-time posters on this board who have been the same, in fact.)

Just don't claim some sort of expertise in analysis if you are unprepared to determine how accurate the input data might be, let alone the reasonableness of your assumptions. In this case, there are simply too many holes in the attempt to quantify to make it useful to claim any sort of superiority of the approach.

David

[Muzh_1]

David, this is more of theoretical analysis that what Mr. Fi presented.

[andrewfi]

Hmmm, David did you do any maths at school?

EM has a large number of female profiles and thus is likely to be MORE representative of the universe of women seeking a foreign husband than a smaller one.

The effect of Pareto is likely the same in all samples and thus has no distorting effect.

The base was the percentage of women getting married. Pareto is not an issue here. If the long tail of women get no visits, as we already know from observation and a few get lots of guys that does not affect the number of guys getting on planes at all, does it? At the same time the guys getting on planes do not go round thinking about how many men his woman has met with in the past month - if he did he would likely not be on the plane.

David, which of my assumptions do you query and what would your estimate, based upon your observations be for the values of those variables`?
When you plug your estimates into the model, which you did not dispute, what is the output?

See David, that is the benefit of thinking about stuff objectively!
Now you and I have the chance to discuss in a more objective fashion.

David, Muzh, plug your estimates of the variables into the model, share with us all what happens when you do.
Then let us talk about that, yes
It'll save you the need for emotional and subjective reactions and reduce your need to make attempts at insult.

Go on, give it a whirl!

Oh, David, by the way how is your research into legal actions against aggregating international marriage agencies in respect of their non-US contractors coming along? Anything to report as yet?

[2tallbill]

Interestingly we can see that the 'sensible' range of results is close to the 5% general assumption with, in my opinion, a likelihood of being less than 5% flying being greater than more than 5% flying hence my conclusion above.

Andrew, I looked for a solid 15 minutes trying to find the "5% "
quote from EM which is about my limit for looking for a statistic.

Do you have a link? If not I will spend another 10 minutes at it.
(past my limit for searching for stuff during the work week)
I skimmed the FAQs, I have read the statistic but don't remember
precisely what it said.

Udachi

Bill

[andrewfi]

Interestingly we can see that the 'sensible' range of results is close to the 5% general assumption with, in my opinion, a likelihood of being less than 5% flying being greater than more than 5% flying hence my conclusion above.

Andrew, I looked for a solid 15 minutes trying to find the "5% "
quote from EM which is about my limit for looking for a statistic.

Do you have a link? If not I will spend another 10 minutes at it.
(past my limit for searching for stuff during the work week)
I skimmed the FAQs, I have read the statistic but don't remember
precisely what it said.

Udachi

Bill

Bill, it was something I turned up on their site yonks ago and I used to when I was trying to estimate the number of women active in the MOB business in Russia.
I will have a look but websites are not permanent fixtures.
The reason it sticks with me is that if they had given 5% of men flying then the model I made for the number of active women could not have worked.
BTW, not only did the model work but the estimate I arrived at is a figure often quoted in other documents about the size of the industry in Russia, Not claiming credit for the number but simply that other people in different ways got to the same place.

Bill, update, I did not now turn up the figure however I did find these interesting documents:
http://www.elenasmodels.com/press/menstats.htm
http://www.elenasmodels.com/press/08082006release.htm

Interestingly they do show that there are approximately twice as many 'users' of their service who are men than women. They also refer to members as 'users' a nice general term that suggests that the numbers show are cumulative and do not represent current or active members. This does not impact on the model I shared up-thread but might help folks wanting to estimate the size of the business.

[msmoby]

Hmmm, David did you do any maths at school?

EM has a large number of female profiles and thus is likely to be MORE representative of the universe of women seeking a foreign husband than a smaller one.

second time - hoping THIS post will not 'disappear'   

andrewfi - arithmetic has nought to do with this.. I'm sure dbneely's - as is yours - is just fine .. we are talking statistics, here...  and we ALL know the expression about them..

If EM has a larger database, then you'll know that it has had a considerable  number of ladies who may have married and not informed EM.. folks on dating sites don't feel the need to update their 'statii'  - So, please explain the formula you used to calculate this indeterminate variable...  and before you suggest MY arithmetic / maths is dodgy - I passed ( well) O level maths at 14  - normal age 16 ....

The effect of Pareto is likely the same in all samples and thus has no distorting effect.

andrewfi is now attempting to demonstrate his knowledge of an Italian Economists 'theory' .. *I* fail to see how it is applicable here. - or how it backs up andrewfi's assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

David, which of my assumptions do you query and what would your estimate, based upon your observations be for the values of those variables`?
When you plug your estimates into the model, which you did not dispute, what is the output?

My name is not David - but I'm sure you'll not mind a response to your 'challenge'

Go on, give it a whirl!

I've 'given it a whirl' and REALLY hope the mods will leave the riposte intact and you'll respond in an appropriate manner

Oh, David, by the way how is your research into legal actions against aggregating international marriage agencies in respect of their non-US contractors coming along? Anything to report as yet?

Hoping David will be as forthcoming as your good-self.....

[heijdenj]

Andrew,

I would like to understand your model a little better  (where's the professor smiley?). To understand the number EM has quoted for the number of their female clients which have actually married a foreign guy through their agency (assuming that it is correct) one should start by looking at the services they provide. Actually they have different levels of memberships going up to "individual search". The point being that the more money you pay for matchmaking, the more likely you are going to be meeting your prospective bride. So the EM number contains a group of men that is reasonably certain to be going to meet someone. I am sure there will be companies with better success rates and companies with worse. So to hold a success rate for EM clients as characteristic for the business as a whole is an assumption that needs some attention IMHO. However, you could argue that this uncertainty is addressed in your uncertainty of ratio of men vs. women.
 
An aspect that I have not noticed in your analysis is the fact that there are people on these sites without any intention of getting married, like pro-daters or sex-tourists (see the reply of Moby as well). You can claim that we are talking statistics here, but that argument does not take into account possible bias of these people for certain sites. And therefore this aspect introduces uncertainty in your model. You have not taken that into account. Again, you could argue that this uncertainty is addressed in your uncertainty of ratio of men vs. women, but we are starting to stretch your margins now .
 
In your analysis you have showed us uncertainty in the number of men in the market place versus the number of women. You could argue that the uncertainty is not as big as you mention in your model, however, there are additional uncertainties as I have discussed before. What I find striking is that you don't take an uncertainty band on the number of men that go on the plane vs the number of men that get married. Ie. this number is fixed on 3. I find that hard to believe. Let me try to explain. First of all you have men who will not have any intention of getting married. But they will visit a number of girls. Then you have men who want to get married, but not to the first (or maybe even second girl they visit). Then you have men who are lucky the first time. If you accept an error band on this number as well, isn’t it true that you could get nearly any number, because you are starting to multiply uncertainties.
 
Then there is the problem of one partner being registered in multiple sites, and one partner only on one site? How will you take this into account? How do you take into account that both partners are registered on multiple but different sites? How do you take into account that both partners are registered on the same multiple sites?etc. etc. etc. 
 
Bottom line, I would maintain that your model and analysis are too simplified for real proof of the statement. You could just as well throw a dice and come up with an answer.

[Manny]

K1/3/CR1 visas to the US is a good indicator that can be thrown into the mix. Last time I checked, the best figure we could find suggested it was about 4000 visas a year issued to FSU women. Not all will be "MOB's" though......

The % of US clients quoted by EM could be considered representative. They say 44% (which sounds low to me). Based on the US/EM figures, 40% of the women are marrying Americans = 4000 women. That suggests ten thousand or so FSU women marrying foreigners each year? So the marriage figures might be 10k a year spread across the industry and free sites. If those 10k represent the "lucky" 5%, that suggests 200k men per year "looking" does it not?

Where's my calculator........

[andrewfi]

Heidenj, I was not trying to answer a question.

As we both understand, I am sure, the more complex a model the closer it is to reality. The most complex model IS reality. If I had better data I might have gone for a different model, but this is just a forum and nobody pays me for this stuff.
When doing analysis we can only use what we have to hand.

I was seeking to understand whether the figure tossed about for blokes getting on a plane was feasible not to try to figure out how many actually do.

The outcome demonstrated that the oft used figure is within a feasible range.
That's all, it is dead simple.

Oh, you make the point that EM offers all sorts of ways to get two folks fixed up. So does the marketplace, the 'universe' in this case and thus this sample is, if anything, made more relevant by the diversity of routes to marriage that EM offers. Good point!
I was only concerned that the sample was large enough to be likely to be representative of the group of women who seek foreign guys, which I am sure it is. The diversity you noted merely supports that choice.

Do you think then that because EM has a large number of women on their files and that they have many ways to be 'found' by active Americans that they are LESS likely to be representative?
Do you think that because this same data when used to help with a different analysis that turned out to agree with estimates drawn up in other studies means that EM were LESS likely to be using figures that represented either the truth as they saw it from their records or the reality of the universe as a whole? I'd have thought that if the information used proved to be useful and functional in one application then it'd likely be useful in another that required it.

You could make a more complex model if you wanted to do so, it'd be interesting to see what happens when you do. I'd like to see what you find from being more complex.

[andrewfi]

Manny, it'll be interesting to see where you get to. Don't forget that the ratio of men to women on EM is about 1.5 to one so given an approximate figure of around 100,000 women in Russia actively looking for a hubby from outside Russia you might get somewhere.
I'd expect to see a ratio of men to women across the board not far from there, between 1.5 and 2.

The 100K was the round number I guesstimated years ago and the same number keeps cropping up in reports about the MOB business in Russia.

[RG]

Bill, update, I did not now turn up the figure however I did find these interesting documents:
http://www.elenasmodels.com/press/menstats.htm
http://www.elenasmodels.com/press/08082006release.htm

The first link also claims 44% of it's male members are from the US, only 10% from the UK, with an average age of 36, and the most prevalent age group of men being between 30-39.  It also goes on to give an average height of 5'11" and weight of 180 pounds, and 56% of members not previously married.  I don't believe that fits if we were to contrast to RUA membership, does it?
I've seen more than once someone throwing out "facts"/opinions that it seems the majority of forum members here and elsewhere would seem to be in a > 50 group (only 13.6% according to EM), and often divorced and at least somewhat overweight.

If EM is assumed to be a representative sample, then what would that mean to forum participants?

[msmoby]

 Touché, RG,  touché

[RG]

K1/3/CR1 visas to the US is a good indicator that can be thrown into the mix. Last time I checked, the best figure we could find suggested it was about 4000 visas a year issued to FSU women. Not all will be "MOB's" though......

The % of US clients quoted by EM could be considered representative. They say 44% (which sounds low to me). Based on the US/EM figures, 40% of the women are marrying Americans = 4000 women. That suggests ten thousand or so FSU women marrying foreigners each year? So the marriage figures might be 10k a year spread across the industry and free sites. If those 10k represent the "lucky" 5%, that suggests 200k men per year "looking" does it not?

Where's my calculator........

Answered back in post #5, here are the actual numbers instead of guessing on US K visas.  I may have overlooked a *stan somehwere, but it seemed to be around 2,000/year from what I saw:

It seems there are roughly 30,000 K1s issued per year(US), and ~10,000 K3s, plus or minus a few percent, unless I'm misreading here:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/nivstats/nivstats_4582.html

It also seems that the FSU comprises roughly 5% of those at best, ~2,000 per year. 
http://www.travel.state.gov/xls/FYs97-09_NIVDetailTable.xls

[Manny]

Bill, update, I did not now turn up the figure however I did find these interesting documents:
http://www.elenasmodels.com/press/menstats.htm
http://www.elenasmodels.com/press/08082006release.htm

The first link also claims 44% of it's male members are from the US, only 10% from the UK, with an average age of 36, and the most prevalent age group of men being between 30-39.  It also goes on to give an average height of 5'11" and weight of 180 pounds, and 56% of members not previously married.  I don't believe that fits if we were to contrast to RUA membership, does it?
I've seen more than once someone throwing out "facts"/opinions that it seems the majority of forum members here and elsewhere would seem to be in a > 50 group (only 13.6% according to EM), and often divorced and at least somewhat overweight.

If EM is assumed to be a representative sample, then what would that mean to forum participants?

EM swallows a number of demographics we don't see here. Germans, Dutch, Swiss, Austrians, Spanish, Turks, French, Scandinavians etc. They are slimmer and younger than the average American/Brit bride-seeker. That evens out the numbers I think.

[Manny]

K1/3/CR1 visas to the US is a good indicator that can be thrown into the mix. Last time I checked, the best figure we could find suggested it was about 4000 visas a year issued to FSU women. Not all will be "MOB's" though......

The % of US clients quoted by EM could be considered representative. They say 44% (which sounds low to me). Based on the US/EM figures, 40% of the women are marrying Americans = 4000 women. That suggests ten thousand or so FSU women marrying foreigners each year? So the marriage figures might be 10k a year spread across the industry and free sites. If those 10k represent the "lucky" 5%, that suggests 200k men per year "looking" does it not?

Where's my calculator........

Answered back in post #5, here are the actual numbers instead of guessing on US K visas.  I may have overlooked a *stan somehwere, but it seemed to be around 2,000/year from what I saw:

It seems there are roughly 30,000 K1s issued per year(US), and ~10,000 K3s, plus or minus a few percent, unless I'm misreading here:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/nivstats/nivstats_4582.html

It also seems that the FSU comprises roughly 5% of those at best, ~2,000 per year. 
http://www.travel.state.gov/xls/FYs97-09_NIVDetailTable.xls

I didn't guess on US visas. In 2007/8 there was very long topic here somewhere with numbers per country published. The numbers were beaten to death by the forum dudes at the time and 4000 FSU visas to the US was the number calculated. I am sure it is in the archives......

[RG]

K1/3/CR1 visas to the US is a good indicator that can be thrown into the mix. Last time I checked, the best figure we could find suggested it was about 4000 visas a year issued to FSU women. Not all will be "MOB's" though......

The % of US clients quoted by EM could be considered representative. They say 44% (which sounds low to me). Based on the US/EM figures, 40% of the women are marrying Americans = 4000 women. That suggests ten thousand or so FSU women marrying foreigners each year? So the marriage figures might be 10k a year spread across the industry and free sites. If those 10k represent the "lucky" 5%, that suggests 200k men per year "looking" does it not?

Where's my calculator........

Answered back in post #5, here are the actual numbers instead of guessing on US K visas.  I may have overlooked a *stan somehwere, but it seemed to be around 2,000/year from what I saw:

It seems there are roughly 30,000 K1s issued per year(US), and ~10,000 K3s, plus or minus a few percent, unless I'm misreading here:
http://travel.state.gov/visa/statistics/nivstats/nivstats_4582.html

It also seems that the FSU comprises roughly 5% of those at best, ~2,000 per year. 
http://www.travel.state.gov/xls/FYs97-09_NIVDetailTable.xls

I didn't guess on US visas. In 2007/8 there was very long topic here somewhere with numbers per country published. The numbers were beaten to death by the forum dudes at the time and 4000 FSU visas to the US was the number calculated. I am sure it is in the archives......

See second link if you want actual numbers instead of trying to recall someone else's math.   It covers 1997-2007.  You did mention a calculator, why not use it?
2007:
Russia  1347 K1, 118 K3, 347 K2
Ukraine 930 K1, 288 K3, 50 K2
Belarus 132 K1, 7 K3, 27 K2
Uzbekistan 50 K1, 5 K3, 8 K2
Moldova 58 K1, 9 K3, 15 K2
...
I may have been a bit shy on my 2,000 quick math, but I don't see 4000, either..not for 2007, from an official source.  I'm unsure why a thread not even linked to would be preferred over an actual official US government data source offered now twice within the same thread? 
For quick comparison, not per capita as a percentage, which would be fun too, there were roughly 6400 from Philippines for K1 alone, and 2400 from mainland China (K1 only).  Germany some 800+ K1 only, a similar number from GB + Northern Ireland.

[Vinnvinny]

EM swallows a number of demographics we don't see here. Germans, Dutch, Swiss, Austrians, Spanish, Turks, French, Scandinavians etc.

Doing a quick search on EM then it appears that the vast majority of men searching aren't from the USA (63% against 37% from USA) and those within the EU/Egypt & Turkey account for a greater number (39%).

If EM figures are the benchmark then it makes you wonder how the proposed IMBRA changes have killed the FSU bride business, especially when there seems a strong likelihood that guys living a few hours flight away would be more likely to visit.

[RG]

Bill, update, I did not now turn up the figure however I did find these interesting documents:
http://www.elenasmodels.com/press/menstats.htm
http://www.elenasmodels.com/press/08082006release.htm

The first link also claims 44% of it's male members are from the US, only 10% from the UK, with an average age of 36, and the most prevalent age group of men being between 30-39.  It also goes on to give an average height of 5'11" and weight of 180 pounds, and 56% of members not previously married.  I don't believe that fits if we were to contrast to RUA membership, does it?
I've seen more than once someone throwing out "facts"/opinions that it seems the majority of forum members here and elsewhere would seem to be in a > 50 group (only 13.6% according to EM), and often divorced and at least somewhat overweight.

If EM is assumed to be a representative sample, then what would that mean to forum participants?

EM swallows a number of demographics we don't see here. Germans, Dutch, Swiss, Austrians, Spanish, Turks, French, Scandinavians etc. They are slimmer and younger than the average American/Brit bride-seeker. That evens out the numbers I think.

It seems their totals only do come up with about 77% if you add their percentages up, but a < 25% unaccounted for shouldn't shift the numbers by that much:

Average age:   38.6
By age group:   
18-29 18.4%
30-39   35.2%
40-49   30.7%
50+   13.6%

I would find it more likely that the numbers presented for age, average height/weight, marital status did not exclude the percentages not broken down by nationality, so that still seems to leave some questioning as to either their validity or the validity/assumption that most are > 50, overweight, etc.

[2tallbill]

Interestingly they do show that there are approximately twice as many 'users' of their service who are men than women.

Thanks for the links,

That is why I recommend Elena's models to girls and other
places to guys.

Elena's gives all kinds of advice to girls in Russian to the
girls. Some of which is quite interesting I should start a
new thread with it maybe.

[rougetor]

With respect to USA immigration statistics I think 5% would be overly optimistic considering that there have to be a significant number of FSU women who were already in the USA on some other status like visitors or students or FSU women who met US citizens working in Russia. One of my friends met someone in Houston, for example, who was here on a student visa. I got started in this FSU insanity when a client put me on some sites in 2005. Since that time I have studied the industry closely and, incomprehensible as it may seem, chatted to or corresponded with in excess of 20,000 FSU women on a friendship type basis (two exceptions). A few had men visit them but not one of those 20,000 ever told me that they married a foreigner. One of them in Russia was visited by a man from South Africa and after he departed she married the first Russian who asked her. One of the first women I received a letter from (Moscow resident) introduced me to the term "sex tourist" which suggests another variable, namely, how many men are repeat visitors. I personally know of some local married physicians who visit FSU countries repeatedly for sexual adventure only.

[TomT]

The only thing that we can learn from the number of K/CR1 visas that are issued is that the success rate is abysmally low. (Of course, it's even lower for men who never get on the plane.)

While in Florida, we briefly touched upon the legendary 5% number and decided that it was way optimistic.