|
nebby posted:This, to me, is a myth. You can look at the fundamentals of companies to decide if, on par, they are *probably* reasonably priced. You can look at the yield curves, macroeconomic trends, and fed minutes to decide if there is a better than even chance interest rates are due to go up.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
evilalien posted:No, only the money you put in during 2007 and the short period of time in 2008 when the market was barely higher than it is now would be negative (also possibly in 2000 if you want to go that far back judging by the S&P/Nasdaq). This means very little once you factor in dividends and all the money that was put in over that time when the market was far lower than it is now. There is no starting point pre crash that would leave you negative now if you kept investing regularly. I'm not saying that this strategy *can't* work. I am saying that it is flawed, and is mis-represented as the safest and most sane way to ensure you meet your investment goals. To me, a better strategy is to first, educate yourself. Read up on economics, finance, portfolio allocation and expected returns, fixed income markets, fundamental and technical analysis, commodities and futures, and options. Second, allocate a part of your portfolio you diversify across asset classes and return drivers equally regardless of market conditions. Third, allocate the other part of your portfolio to be reallocated each month based upon your assessment (with the help of a trusted financial advisor) of market conditions. No, there are no guarantees. But, in my view this is an equally sane way of managing your net worth and is worth considering against a passive buy-and-hold-index funds strategy. I'm simply asking that people question their assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
nebby posted:This, to me, is a myth. You can look at the fundamentals of companies to decide if, on par, they are *probably* reasonably priced. You can look at the yield curves, macroeconomic trends, and fed minutes to decide if there is a better than even chance interest rates are due to go up. If your plumber is buying ZNGA, maybe it's time to pull back a bit on stocks. If things are looking particularly optimistic and you're sitting on 1.5% yielding 30-year treasuries, maybe you should move into shorter-term bonds. "Probably". Let me emphasize that even more strongly than you did; "PROBABLY". This is at the heart of why I think you're wrong. Your interpretation of macro trends -which itself is dependent on the reliability of the data you see, the insignificance of the data that you don't see, and on the editorializing of others- is utterly subjective. Similarly, your prediction of what the fed will do bears little resemblance to what the fed will actually do, and the behavior of your plumber is not necessarily a reliable bellwether of an asset's success or failure. As Unormal said, although these strategies may occasionally yield excess returns, unless you have a massive amount of capital to invest, those excess returns will not justify the time commitment needed to earn them, and even if you choose to let others actively manage for you, their fees will eat away those excess returns despite you taking on considerably more risk. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Aug 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Unormal posted:If someone has comparative advantage in their own non-financial career vs how much they could net over the market with hours put into it, they're better off just picking a risk on their passive investments and spending 0 hours on it, and earning money with their hours in at a higher rate. Once you have some working knowledge of these things it doesn't matter what my opinion is or not. You will either have enough confidence in your knowledge to make subjective calls on actively managing at least *part* of your portfolio, or you won't. Once you've learned enough, there will almost certainly be things that you will want to do, not based upon emotions but based upon logic and a rational understanding of the markets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
nebby posted:Yeah I never said anything about how much you'd have now. As you said, four years later you would still have lost money, nevermind the fact that inflation would have eaten into your principal as well. You're acting like a person withdraws 100% of their investments on retirement day, which is ridiculous. Even the most conservative retirement advice I've seen says to keep liquid only the money you'll need to spend in the next five years. Fuschia tude fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Aug 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:"Probably". Let me emphasize that even more strongly than you did; "PROBABLY".
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
nebby posted:The reason I emphasized probably is because its easy for people to fall into the trap of thinking that just because you can't predict the markets with certainty that there is no purpose to making predictions. I predict that you will continue to make absolutely no headway with your line of reasoning, here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
nebby posted:The reason I emphasized probably is because its easy for people to fall into the trap of thinking that just because you can't predict the markets with certainty that there is no purpose to making predictions. That purpose would be gambling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
bam thwok posted:That purpose would be gambling. edit: anyway, i'm done making GBS threads up the thread. good luck out there, and if nothing else I said made any sense at the very least make sure if you are investing you read more than 1-2 books on the subject and you read a wide variety of viewpoints, not just buy-and-hold'ers. nebby fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Aug 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
nebby posted:If that were the case then buy-and-holders are gambling as well, they're just making a very common, long term, simplistic prediction. Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
nebby posted:Third, allocate the other part of your portfolio to be reallocated each month based upon your assessment (with the help of a trusted financial advisor) of market conditions. No, there are no guarantees. FYI, people who strategically modify their investments do often have lower volatility! ...because they take less risk by not being in the market for as long as people who don't rotate holdings... ...so their long term ER actually ends up lower in the aggregate. Which you can accomplish by just holding a higher percentage of fixed income and not wasting your time every month. I don't appreciate you painting buy and holders as one-topic zombies. Most of the buy and holders I know aren't buy and holders because they read one book and decided it was the one true way. Most of them (including me) have read everything under the sun, started at your position, because more work equals more reward in the work world (where you got your money to invest in the first place). So it seems like that should apply to your investments, duh, right? However, most of them realized over time (and often severe under-performance compared to the market over many years) that it's a lot of wasted energy that gains you little or nothing over the long term, and you're actually better off financially focusing your hours on what you do, not managing your 'passive' investments. Certainly everyone should read everything you can on the topic, no-one's arguing otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
nebby posted:To me, a better strategy is to first, educate yourself. Read up on economics, finance, portfolio allocation and expected returns, fixed income markets, fundamental and technical analysis, commodities and futures, and options. Second, allocate a part of your portfolio you diversify across asset classes and return drivers equally regardless of market conditions. Third, allocate the other part of your portfolio to be reallocated each month based upon your assessment (with the help of a trusted financial advisor) of market conditions. No, there are no guarantees. This. I don't have time for all this crap. If I would and would have knowledge and talent this would be my full-time occupation and work. And even then, as shown by historical data in four pillars 80% of actively managed portfolios will fail to keep up with the market for longer than 15 years. This is sufficient for me to accept all the risks associated with index/bond strategy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
Nonvalueadded User posted:Opinions? Thoughts? Catwoman-like rants about wondering how I thought I could live the high life so long without it crashing down around me? I don't have a lot of advice for you except that we've moved all of our bond funds into our 401ks and changed the non-advantaged accounts to be stock heavy to counterbalance, since gains on bonds are mostly counted as income. Other than that we've set up everything to run on autopilot, the standard mix of stock and bond index funds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
For the Vanguard people here, I'm pretty happy with most of my portfolio balance right now (minus it being a little light in international equity and needing more large cap), but I'd like to start making some changes. The biggest issue I have monthly right now is that I am overpaying more than I should be because I've spread out over too many investor funds and not enough admiral. I have not really gotten into too many ETF's at this point, mostly because I do not really see myself trading very much at this point. What's the better move to make here; a) purchase a few more investor funds to get my allocation where I want it, b) add to a few of the investor funds I have and get them over admiral, c)shift some of the smaller investor funds into Admiral's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
gtkor posted:For the Vanguard people here, I'm pretty happy with most of my portfolio balance right now (minus it being a little light in international equity and needing more large cap), but I'd like to start making some changes. It depends; for example, if you have any smaller funds that have a loss, it could be a good opportunity to tax-loss harvest them, and roll those funds into a simpler portfolio of fewer funds; but if you have gains, you're going to owe taxes on those gains.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
I have an investment portfolio with a local bank's "wealth management group." It's worth about $5,000 right now. Currently 100% of the funds are in a "growth" portfolio, which is a mix of 30-90% in equities and 10-65% in fixed income instruments. I was thinking that I should put all (or just some?) of the money into their "aggressive growth portfolio" which is 50-100% in equities and 0-50% in fixed income instruments. I'm 27 with no debt and about $6,000 in my savings account. Would putting all of the money into an agressive growth portfolio be a good idea? Or only 50-50? I figure I don't have much to lose and I'd really like for it to grow more than it has at the moment. I know it could lose money, but since I'm young, I won't need this money for a long time and it's not like it's a lot of money to begin with. My parents put like $3,000 in it when I was born, in high school in the late 90s/early 2000's it was up to like $15,000 and is now at it's current value after going back down to like $3,000 after the financial crisis. Total Confusion fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Aug 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
You could if you really wanted to. It won't make much of a difference with that kind of money though. This is going for your current funds in it, don't put your saving into it.
Harry fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Aug 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Can someone evaluate my 401k elections? My background: I'm 25, steady full time job, no debt, have >1 year in emergency funds sitting in an online bank. I have ~6k in a Roth IRA Vanguard target retirement fund and ~$16k in my 401k. I don't have any plans to buy a house or anything else big in the near future and just want to save as much as possible for retirement. My current 401k elections look like this: Stock Investments LARGE CAP GROWTH VANG PRIMECAP ADM 35% Stock Investments MID-CAP GROWTH ROYCE PREMIER INST 30% Stock Investments MID-CAP BLEND SPTN EXT MKT IDX ADV 20% Stock Investments DIVERSFD EMERGING MKTS OPP DEVELOPING MKT Y 15% and these are my options (with expense ratios included): JPM SR 2050 C20 1.29% JPM SR INCOME C20 0.74% FID INTERMED BOND |FTHRX 0.45% SPTN US BOND ADV IS |FXNAX 0.05% MANAGED INCOME FUND | 0.407% BLKRK INFL PROTEC IS |BPRIX 0.61% FID RETIRE MMKT |FRTXX 0.42% FID BLUE CHIP GR K | FBGKX 0.77% VANG PRIMECAP ADM | VPMAX 0.36% SPTN 500 INDEX INST | FXSIX 0.05% DODGE & COX STOCK | DODGX 0.52% HARTFORD MID CAP Y | HMDYX 0.77% ROYCE PREMIER INST | RPFIX 0.97% FID LOW PRICED STK K | FLPKX 0.71% SPTN EXT MKT IDX ADV | FSEVX 0.07% JPM SM CAP EQUITY S | VSEIX 1.16% FID DIVERSIFD INTL K | FDIKX 0.73% TEMPLETON FOREIGN AD | TFFAX 0.92% OPP DEVELOPING MKT Y | ODVYX 1.00% I'm a big noob at investing and am trying to get my poo poo together. My initial elections were just to spread numbers around between the various stock investments. I think I need to add some bonds and drop RPFIX for something with a lower ER%? Please advise! heyniceperro fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Aug 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
I'd probably go with something simple like 25% FXNAX, 50% FXSIX, 25% FSEVX. This puts you at 1/4 bond, 3/4 stock, and your stock holdings at 1/3 mid-small cap, 2/3 large cap. As you age, you can tilt that more towards the bond fund for safety. Maybe some of the managed funds in there are standouts and someone else can provide some input on that, but the index funds available are good and you can cover most of the market with them. This will leave some holes, most obviously foreign exposure. Use your individual IRA to plug that with cheap index funds - VFWAX has a very low expense ratio once you can afford $10k for the minimum there. Other than that, if you want to take on additional risk, pick up some VMMSX (VEMAX once you can afford it) in your IRA or increase the percentage of FSEVX while lowering FXSIX in your 401(k). AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Aug 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
If he's putting that much in bonds, he should do it in his Roth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Harry posted:If he's putting that much in bonds, he should do it in his Roth. Why?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Bond returns in tax-advantaged retirement accounts are a good starting point of discussion. Similar to why if you'd like to have a mix of dividend income stocks and growth stocks, you should have the dividend producers in your tax-advantaged ones to avoid getting hit so often on dividend payouts destroying long-term growth while in a non-tax advantaged account you can at least get some tax safety in the form of capital gains taxes. Bonds have returns in the same manner. Trying to add taxation considerations between non-tax advantaged accounts and brokerage accounts can be complicated but I believe this is the crux of the matter in question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Inept posted:Why? Bond interest is counted as ordinary income usually, while stocks (that would be a 401k) would be counted as a long term capital gain. Assuming you're withdrawing a decent amount, you're saving basically 15%+ on taxes when it comes to bonds in the tax free account at the price of paying 7-10% more for the stocks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
I recognize that it's good to have anything that kicks off regular income (bond coupons, dividends, REIT earnings, etc.) in a tax advantaged account, but under the circumstances that heyniceperro's got, he's talking about a Roth IRA and a 401(k). Is there a reason to put bonds into one of them vs. another? Aren't they both tax advantaged for purposes of these considerations?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
The income he's receiving in his roth is completely tax free, while the income in his 401k will be taxed eventually at whatever the income tax rate is when he starts taking distributions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Okay, I recently read the Four Pillars and I get it. Individual stocks are bad, active funds are bad, pick an asset mix somewhere along the efficient frontier according to your risk tolerance and invest in a mix of low-cost index funds. Rebalance occasionally (Bernstein suggests every 2-3 years, though you can adjust how new deposits are distributed). Maybe slightly overweight those asset classes which have underperformed recently. Great. Then I did some more reading, and I also get why modern portfolio theory is lacking -- it incorrectly assumes normal distributions for periodic returns (monthly, quarterly, annually, whatever), it's backward-looking when historical returns do not imply future performance (even over the long term), correlations change wildly during crashes, behavioral reactions to gains and losses are asymmetric, etc. But there's this amazing post-modern portfolio theory that addresses all of these shortcomings to some extent! Hooray! Now MPT is probably good enough, and it's easy to use: there are tons of free mean-variance optimizers available online and an abundance of historical data, so it should be easy enough to pick a portfolio. But I've read claims that the efficient frontiers for MPT and PMPT can be wildly different. So how the hell does one apply PMPT? Is there any software that can help me with this newer theory? I haven't been able to find anything more than the most basic of equations for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
Is it possible to roll over a 401k into a Roth IRA? I've had a 401k from an old employer sitting around for a while and it's occurring to me this year because I might not be able to max out my Roth contributions. Also I'm now making less than I was previously and less than I (hopefully) will be in the future, so the tax hit shouldn't be bad. Unless, that is, I have to take the 10% deduction for withdrawal in order to get it into a Roth IRA. In that case I might as well leave it where it is, right (Fidelity, the options aren't atrocious)? One complication: the employer contributions are only something like 20% vested. There's a small chance I could end up working there again (academia) so I don't want to forfeit the employer contributions, if possible. Though there's not that much of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
Harry posted:The income he's receiving in his roth is completely tax free, while the income in his 401k will be taxed eventually at whatever the income tax rate is when he starts taking distributions. Isn't everything from your 401k taxed at income tax rate, regardless of whether it came from coupons/dividends/capital gains? I didn't think it mattered whether you kept bonds in an IRA vs. 401k
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
I didn't see advice in the OP for new investors when they start investing/saving with (heavy) debt, and I'm looking for some tips. Scenario: I'm 170k in the red, and my average salary for the next seven years will be about 190k a year, before bonuses. Bonuses can be tricky to predict in my industry, but if I had to guess I think a conservative estimate would be an additional 190k, so call the total nut 1.5 million before taxes in this window. My 401(k) contribution is up to 50% of my salary. No family and not trying to buy a house any time soon. Not sure what other info would be helpful to share but let me know and I'm happy to do so. Especially looking for advice on how much to invest vs. how much debt to pay down in a given month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
sigmachiev posted:I didn't see advice in the OP for new investors when they start investing/saving with (heavy) debt, and I'm looking for some tips. Scenario: I'm 170k in the red, and my average salary for the next seven years will be about 190k a year, before bonuses. Bonuses can be tricky to predict in my industry, but if I had to guess I think a conservative estimate would be an additional 190k, so call the total nut 1.5 million before taxes in this window. My 401(k) contribution is up to 50% of my salary. No family and not trying to buy a house any time soon. Listing how much debt you have isn't very helpful unless you also tell us the interest rate. Also, does your employer match your 401(k) contributions in any way?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
flowinprose posted:Listing how much debt you have isn't very helpful unless you also tell us the interest rate. Also, does your employer match your 401(k) contributions in any way? I knew I forgot something - the debt is all federal student loans which puts interest at 3.4% last I checked. As for the 401(k) match, I'm pretty certain there is zero match at the associate level where I'm at but I don't have my benefits information in front of me. I'd be stunned to learn they do it since it would buck the industry norm. E: I could be wrong on the interest rate, but I thought there was a freeze at 3.4% on fed loans through 2013. A big motivation for this question is basically me trying to get my ducks in a row so I can hit the ground running come November when work starts. This is the first time I'm getting a good salary/retirement stuff so I'm total noob. VVVVV 50% of total compensation subject to yearly max contributions set by the IRS, if that helps clarify things. As for monthly/yearly contribution: now this is just the first idea and I welcome all suggestions, but I want to contribute, at a minimum, a grand a month to student loans and a grand towards investing/saving/long term future stuff. There's room for both these figures to go up. And thanks for the help! sigmachiev fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Aug 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
flowinprose posted:Listing how much debt you have isn't very helpful unless you also tell us the interest rate. Also, does your employer match your 401(k) contributions in any way? Not to mention there is a yearly limit on 401k contributions right? Looks like it is $17,000 for an individual in 2012 (with employer contributions bringing it to a higher level). I'm assuming you meant you felt as though you could contribute up to 50% of your salary since you obviously can't contribute 95k to your 401k without paying penalties. Also that salary puts you above the limit to contribute to an IRA so that is also out of the question. Seeing as how I don't make nearly that much I don't really know what your next best retirement investment opportunity would be but I'm sure others will have ideas. Like flow said, to make any real advice people here need to know the interest rate/rates on your debt. And while it's nice to know the gross salary it'd be even nicer if you could give an estimate of the monthly/yearly figure you plan to allocate to retirement savings/debt repayment since monthly expenses can be hard to judge situation to situation. This all being said, given your salary I don't see any reason why you couldn't max the 401k contribution. After that it comes down to debt interest rate/rates, and what you can reasonably expect to get on return in investment opportunities aside from 401k/IRA which I will leave for those with more knowledge than me to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
somedude posted:Also that salary puts you above the limit to contribute to an IRA so that is also out of the question. AFAIK, the "backdoor" Roth IRA is still possible, as there is still no income limit to converting a trad IRA to a Roth. Anyone can contribute to a trad IRA, the contributions just become non-deductible above a certain income. That puts 17k/yr in the 401k, 5k/yr in the IRA, and plenty leftover for The only other things that come to mind for investing after that are tax-free municipal bonds and see a professional financial planner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 08:26
|
|
|
plester1 posted:AFAIK, the "backdoor" Roth IRA is still possible, as there is still no income limit to converting a trad IRA to a Roth. Anyone can contribute to a trad IRA, the contributions just become non-deductible above a certain income. Ah right, I remember reading about the backdoor Roth IRA when I browsing this thread a while ago but completely forgot it existed. But yeah this poster really doesn't have a lot to worry about in terms of paying back debt. With that much money, seeing a financial planner is probably a good step. Also, asking colleagues what they do isn't a bad idea as long as you do your research before agreeing to/signing up for a "fool proof" way to get really good returns (same for advice from a financial planner, always good to verify things independently).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
Echo 3 posted:Isn't everything from your 401k taxed at income tax rate, regardless of whether it came from coupons/dividends/capital gains? I didn't think it mattered whether you kept bonds in an IRA vs. 401k Here's kind of the basic breakdown. Roth IRA: Interest income (taxed at around 25% probably) -> 0% tax rate Stocks (taxed at 15%) -> 0% tax rate 401k: Interest income (25%) -> ~ 12% effective probably. Stocks (15%)- > ~12% effective I can't find the site that gave a better breakdown than what I'm giving unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
I was trying to make my monthly contributions to my Roth go to buying VFIFX (Vanguard's Target Lifecycle 2050) because I don't want to worry about reallocation as much in my Roth. My contributions right now go to Fidelity and it seems like I'm going to incur a couple percentage points of fees every time I go to purchase. Should I just open a Vanguard account to do this? I left Vanguard 10 years ago because their web site was terrible but maybe it is better now. I just like having all of my investment positions on one website.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
sigmachiev posted:I knew I forgot something - the debt is all federal student loans which puts interest at 3.4% last I checked. As for the 401(k) match, I'm pretty certain there is zero match at the associate level where I'm at but I don't have my benefits information in front of me. I'd be stunned to learn they do it since it would buck the industry norm. You definitely need to make sure you know exactly what the interest rates are on the loans. If they really are only 3.4% then I wouldn't worry too much about paying them off very quickly. Honestly if it were me and I had those interest rates permanently I would pay only the minimum on those loans because you would be better off investing the money elsewhere rather than paying down the loans faster than you had to. You could easily put the max in both 401k and Roth (using backdoor) given your income level and not even feel a hit from it. You will probably want to consider investing even more outside of those tax-sheltered vehicles, in which case a good idea that has been mentioned is tax-exempt municipal bonds. Given your income the tax benefits would be fairly substantial. Other than that, you can split your investments between tax-sheltered (401k/Roth) and taxable accounts, and I would recommend reading this: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Principles_of_Tax-Efficient_Fund_Placement regarding some of the rationale on how to go about that process. If you do the current max between 401k + Roth, that will come to around 1800/month of investments. Not sure what other expenses you have, but that only amounts to around 15% of your annual income. You could probably easily put away another 500+ per month in taxable accounts without flinching. Pay yourself first, then enjoy life you lucky rich bastard 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
sigmachiev posted:I didn't see advice in the OP for new investors when they start investing/saving with (heavy) debt, and I'm looking for some tips. Scenario: I'm 170k in the red, and my average salary for the next seven years will be about 190k a year, before bonuses. Bonuses can be tricky to predict in my industry, but if I had to guess I think a conservative estimate would be an additional 190k, so call the total nut 1.5 million before taxes in this window. My 401(k) contribution is up to 50% of my salary. No family and not trying to buy a house any time soon. The answers really depend on the interest rates, so I would firm that up. 3.4% sounds lower than I thought rates are at these days. I would probably want to save 20% of income for starters. 401(k), backdoor roth, plus some taxable investments. As noted above, the bogleheads site has a good reference for what funds should be held in the taxable accounts. gvibes fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Aug 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
I think that only subsidized federal loans are at 3.4%. If you owe $170,000, I'm pretty sure that a good chunk of that is going to have an interest rate at well above 3.4%.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
gvibes posted:Coming from a 2005 grad, assuming biglaw salaries for seven years seems a bit optimistic, but good luck. The great majority wash out of biglaw well before then. Good advice everyone, appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 05:10
|
|