The Motley Fool used to be a great, largely-free resource, but now most of the good sections require a subscription.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
"Paid Off, Now F***Off" Debt Thread
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The Motley Fool used to be a great, largely-free resource, but now most of the good sections require a subscription.
Serious question - I have 3 student loans. One is fixed at 2.75%, one is fixed at 5%, and the other is variable, and is currently sitting at 7.5% IIRC. There is a limit to how high the interest can go, but off the top of my head I don't remember what that limit is.
Is a general strategy to not pay off a debt early if you can make more money elsewhere? Does inflation matter here? Someone above said that you shouldn't pay off a debt early if the money you are gaining - the debt's interest rate is < ~3%, the approximate rate of inflation.
I doubt I could beat that 7.5% interest debt, so should I try to pay that one off ASAP, and just pay the minimum on the others?
SmoochyTX
Lifer
Even if you're not religious, Dave Ramsey is wonderful for financial advice. You can listen to most of his show each day online if you sign up and download the podcast (if you can't listen live or if it's not broadcast in your area). He's 'no holds barred' when it comes to telling people what they should be doing while also showing empathy for those having hard times.
You'd have to listen to understand.
AlienCraft
Lifer
I learned a long time ago that it doesn't matter what you say so much as how you say it.
Your thinly veiled insults, and snarky commentary do little in advancing your position.
You're in banking to make money for the shareholders, not to help people.
That our economic system is based only in faith should be more troubling to you.
Not Gold, or land title even. Faith. The Government says it's a dollar, it's a dollar. To the Chinese, maybe not so fast, and they own our debt. To them a dollar may only be worth 40 cents
As long as there is an uneducated public who doesn't save any of their disposable income, continues to overspend in useless merchandise and basically lives beyond their means, consumers will be at the mercy of bankers who are only beholden to a maximized bottom line for the bank.
My only premise here is that paying off a debt is a good thing, and that debt in general is not as good as no debt. Furthermore, that debt must be paid, regardless and that paying off debt sooner is better than later, if doing so can save on the interest charged.
I was happy to have discharged two more of mine, still am despite the thread crapping
By the way, giving someone a choice of "everything or nothing" with you, only limits you.
LegendKiller
Lifer
Inflation plays into all investment decisions, to a certain extent.
An interest rate has 3 main components.
1. Inflation.
2. Risk-Free rate above inflation (usually US treasuries, which pays slightly more than inflation)
3. Credit spread.
Of course, credit spread is made up of many different things, but we'll leave it at that.
Now, this applies to almost all financial instruments. In the case of some, such as your student loans, your credit spread can be negative, that is your funding cost could be under inflation. This could be because you took out your loan during low inflation + low credit spread (as in the early 2000's when the fed funds overnight was 1%).
Whether or not a liability is greater or less than inflation makes no difference. If it's below it just means you have super cheap financing. If it's above, it just means you have slightly more expensive financing.
What makes the real difference is your credit spread.
Lets take an example, lets say you have $100,000 in student loans at 3.5% that have a 30-year repayment period. You also have $100,000 in cash. With this money you have two options. You can repay the student loan, effectively "investing" all of your cash at a 3.5% interest rate (since you will be saving 3.5% indefinitely).
Your second option is to invest your 100,000 in a 8% index fund for the next 30 years. Now, when people think of an index they think of the DJIA going up and down with a lot of volatility. What they forget is that the short-term movements do not matter, since you have 30-years to wait out any cycle. .
You may be asking yourself "Wait, I asked about inflation". Well, keep in mind that inflation is involved in everything, including that 8% return. If you took inflation out, lets say it was 2%, then your loans have a credit spread of 1.5% and your equities have a credit spread of 6%. You may also be asking "Well, doesn't credit spread = risk?" Sure, it does, but it equals volatility. Volatility is a short-term measurement, in the long-term you ride out all volatility. Conceivably you could lose out long-term, but then that'd be the biggest downturn in the US economy in history.
So, back to our two scenarios. In #1, you "make" 3.5% by "investing" your 100k in paying off your loan. From that point on, for the next 29.9999 years, you have nothing to pay. However, you have nothing to invest either!
In scenario 2, you *invest* your 100k at 8%. For the next 30 years it earns this amount, but you also have to service your debt at 3.5%. You get a spread of 4.5%. However, it still isn't that simple, because that's assuming it's a 100% "bullet payment", but you are actually amortizing your loan.
Your annual payment will be $5,437. However, your annual income will be ~8.5k. At the end of 30 years, you will have a total amount of $390.3k in the bank. During that time you will have paid $163k on your loans, or 63k of interest.
Think of that. By keeping your loans and investing at 8% for 30 years, you will end up with 390k. By just paying them off, you have nothing after 30 years, except that you avoided paying $63k in interest, and just the knowledge that you didn't have to worry about payments for 30 years.
Lets take my example. My weighted average interest rate is 2.5%. I am reasonably certain I can use my skills to get a 10% return and I have taken a 30-year repayment period on 130k in loans. By next Jan I could pay them all off, but should I?
After 30 years I will have $1.246M by not repaying. I will have paid $186.3k, or 56k in interest. However, if I had repaid them, I would have $0. I would have just saved 56k, but not have made 1.246M.
Now you tell me, "saving" 56k, or *MAKING* 1.246M. Which is worth it?
My advice, pay off the 7.5%. Pay min on everything else. Shove all of your money into several index funds, including international, small cap, medium cap, and a smaller amount of large cap. If you go mutual funds, I avoid "growth" funds, as they have long-term historically underperformed "value" funds.
No bonds, long-term investing is only dragged down by bonds.
alkemyst
No Lifer
The reason it's usually better to pay off the debts is due to not having the principle in the higher yield accounts to offset the debt loss.
$50,000 at 2.75% is not going to be dented by 15k at 5%. As the numbers change you could net a workable amount, but most people with a ton of debt do not have a ton of savings.
LegendKiller
Lifer
My insults are only matched for your ignorance and disdain, sorry that I only match what I get from you.
What I find funny is that you think that the two mediums you mentioned are not "faith" based. Land is valued upon the faith that another individual will pay as much as you appraise it for. Gold is valued upon the faith that people will continue to want it. Gold is nothing special and there are many better and more valuable instruments which you an place value on. However, historically men have followed gold as a medium to attach value. Whether it's gold, oil, sheep skin, or a handful of dirt, it's all based upon faith that somebody attaches value to a certain good. What if, tomorrow, belly button lint was decided to be the new medium to transact goods, then what? What will happen to the faith people have in gold? Sure, gold can be used to make stuff, but what if we no longer needed it? Same thing with the US currency. What would happen if we needed belly button lint more? Then what? Where is your "faith" in gold, or in land?
Everything is based upon faith, provided it needs a value attached, to think anything less is wholly ignorant.
The faith of the US currency is based upon the continued prosperity and availability of our economy to foreign investors. This faith is also backed by the ideal that America will always stay strong, as will every other economy out there. This faith currency is no different than any other currency you mentioned. The US currency is also backed by the knowledge that the US will protect it's interest, so every penny is also backed by the USS Nimitz and sister ships.
So what if bankers are only beholden to the bottom line? Aren't investors who invest in that bank people who hold 401k, mutual funds, equity funds, and pensions investors? Aren't they really who will be reaping the benefits? What about CalPers, the largest investing fund in the nation? Don't they benefit from "the bottom line"?
But wait, all they are investing in is "faith" that the bottom line will keep going, right? Perhaps they should just invest in gold, which has poor returns in the long run. That way, then that "faith" medium will return crappy returns, meaning that the pensioners will have to shove more money into CalPers, since their money isn't invested in anything worth more "faith" than a hunk of shiny metal you so love.
What's funny is that you think I am a "all or none" person, when, in fact, *YOU* are all or none. You say no debt, at all. I say, debt, provided you can make more than you pay. You claim so much to know a lot more than anybody else who likes debt, but in fact, you know very little about how things work. Instead, you point to some sort of scheme by your "masters" who try to shackle you.
What a crock. No better than some silly conspiracy theorist believing in the illuminatti or the perceived domination of the Rothschilds. Spread your fudd elsewhere.
www.diehards.org
http://investingessentials.blogspot.com...ter-2-develop-asset-allocation-in.html
You can get a fair perspective on risk by looking at actual stock market losses compared to how much money was allocated to stocks. The table below is based on the actual market losses encountered in the 1973-74 bear market. A bear market is normally defined as a market decline of 20% or more. Drops of 10% to 15% are called corrections.
Note in the table that a 100% stock portfolio lost nearly 50% of its value in two years. If you had 50% stocks and 50% bonds, your loss would have been limited to "only" 20%.
Max Equity Exposure....... Max loss
20%.......................................5%
30%.....................................10%
40%.....................................15%
50%.....................................20%
60%.....................................25%
70%.....................................30%
80%.................................... 35%
90%.................................... 40%
100%........................... ...... 50%
This information isn't provided to scare you out of investing in stocks. It is intended to give you a full appreciation for risk. The market can and will deliver severe downturns from time to time. And while the stock market has provided far greater returns than any other investment class, the ride can be a bumpy one. If you don't wear a safety harness, you may get hurt.
Another way to evaluate your tolerance for loss is to look at how much you have to earn to make up for the losses. Here is a table that shows the required gain for a given loss. Notice the make-up rate is not linear. The higher the loss, the higher the required gain to get even. This means, for example, if you lose 40% of a $100,000 portfolio, getting back to your starting point means you need a 67% gain.
Loss (%)....... Req'd Gain
5%................. 5.2%
10%................. 11%
15%................. 18%
20%................. 25%
25%................. 33%
30%................. 43%
35%................. 54%
40%................. 67%
45%................. 82%
50%............... 100%
Legendary value investor Benjamin Graham recommended holding no more than 75% stock and no less than 25%. William Bernstein points out in his book "The Four Pillars of Investing" that a portfolio with 80-85% stocks and 15-20% in bonds and cash reduces downside risk to a significant degree while hardly reducing returns at all. Here are the numbers. Please note that the returns used are historical. Future returns may be lower. Potential losses, however, are related to asset allocation and not returns, so they would remain about the same.
Average Annual Return 1960-2004
100% Stock Portfolio = 10.6%
80% Stock, 20% Bonds = 10.1%
http://investingessentials.blogspot.com...ter-2-develop-asset-allocation-in.html
You can get a fair perspective on risk by looking at actual stock market losses compared to how much money was allocated to stocks. The table below is based on the actual market losses encountered in the 1973-74 bear market. A bear market is normally defined as a market decline of 20% or more. Drops of 10% to 15% are called corrections.
Note in the table that a 100% stock portfolio lost nearly 50% of its value in two years. If you had 50% stocks and 50% bonds, your loss would have been limited to "only" 20%.
Max Equity Exposure....... Max loss
20%.......................................5%
30%.....................................10%
40%.....................................15%
50%.....................................20%
60%.....................................25%
70%.....................................30%
80%.................................... 35%
90%.................................... 40%
100%........................... ...... 50%
This information isn't provided to scare you out of investing in stocks. It is intended to give you a full appreciation for risk. The market can and will deliver severe downturns from time to time. And while the stock market has provided far greater returns than any other investment class, the ride can be a bumpy one. If you don't wear a safety harness, you may get hurt.
Another way to evaluate your tolerance for loss is to look at how much you have to earn to make up for the losses. Here is a table that shows the required gain for a given loss. Notice the make-up rate is not linear. The higher the loss, the higher the required gain to get even. This means, for example, if you lose 40% of a $100,000 portfolio, getting back to your starting point means you need a 67% gain.
Loss (%)....... Req'd Gain
5%................. 5.2%
10%................. 11%
15%................. 18%
20%................. 25%
25%................. 33%
30%................. 43%
35%................. 54%
40%................. 67%
45%................. 82%
50%............... 100%
Legendary value investor Benjamin Graham recommended holding no more than 75% stock and no less than 25%. William Bernstein points out in his book "The Four Pillars of Investing" that a portfolio with 80-85% stocks and 15-20% in bonds and cash reduces downside risk to a significant degree while hardly reducing returns at all. Here are the numbers. Please note that the returns used are historical. Future returns may be lower. Potential losses, however, are related to asset allocation and not returns, so they would remain about the same.
Average Annual Return 1960-2004
100% Stock Portfolio = 10.6%
80% Stock, 20% Bonds = 10.1%
LegendKiller
Lifer
I love how you point out some massive drops, but fail to point out massive gains. Sure, I can take any point in history and compare it. Yet, for some reason, you miss the point of every single post on this subject. In the long-run, the volatility from stocks, including all short-term, medium-term, and macro cyclical volatility is *ELIMINATED* by holding long-term. What is the point of bonds? To eliminate volatility. If you eliminate it by holding for long periods, what are you going to do? Double eliminate it? Wow, I double dog dare to to prove how that works.
You tried, so lets look at your example.
Amazingly, that .5% = 22% more money at the end of that 44 year period. I have 8.4M compared to 6.9M on 100k invested.
Sorry, come again. I'll gladly be 1.5M more rich than you after 44 years, if you don't want to be, for no additional benefit, then don't be, it's your loss and my gain, thanks!
I love how they try to utilize long-term rates of return to "prove" some stodgy methodology of investing, yet use a 1-term equity loss to prove how "bad" 100% equity is. THen they fail to extrapolate the "only 4.7% annual gain" into a realistic example, like I did above.
Bonds = drag on portfolio in the long run.
I hope anyone who is interested has some time to look at the following link:
http://investingessentials.blogspot.com/
To say you will be 100% stocks until 5 years until retirement is complete market timing. If you have a bear market "5 years" before you retire, you now lost 40-50% of your investment and will have to sell your stocks at the lowest point in order to reach the "asset allocation" you desire "5 years" before you retire, locking in the losses from the bear market.
The following is just more paragraphs from the link I just previously pasted from last post.
It is highly likely that at least one major bear will hit investors over a 30 year period. Nine of the 10 biggest bear losses were between 45% and 50%. I used 50% as happened in the 1970's. Data from Larry Swedroe shows losses compared to asset allocation for that period:
100/0 portfolio = 50% loss, 80/20 portfolio = 35% loss,
I assumed an investor had yearly constant contributions to a retirement account of $4000 ($333/month) beginning with 0 assets.
If a major bear market happens after 5 years of investing:A 100/0 portfolio grows to $26,199, then gets a 50% loss = $13,099
An 80/20 portfolio grows to $25,854, then gets a 35% loss = $16,805
How long does it take the 100/0 portfolio to catch back up to the 80/20%?
It takes the 100/0 portfolio 20 years to get even with the 80/20.
20 years later...
The 100/0 portfolio begins with $13,099 after the bear and grows to $381,578 at 10.6%
The 80/20 portfolio begins with $16,805 after the bear and grows to $381,789 at 10.1%
Note. Accumulation of assets is more important than high returns when starting out. Losing half after 5 years really puts you in a hole.
--------------------------------
If a major bear market happens after 20 years investing:A 100/0 portfolio grows to $273,460 then gets a 50% loss = $136,730
An 80/20 portfolio grows to $256,174 then gets a 35% loss = $166,513
Again, it takes the 100/0 portfolio 20 years to get even....
The 100/0 portfolio begins with $136,730 after the bear and grows to $1,402,022 at 10.6%
The 80/20 portfolio begins with $166,513 after the bear and grows to $1,500,836 at 10.1%
In this example, I've used an investment rate of $4000 per year. But in reality, because of employer plans like 401(k)s, the investment rate might be $15,000 per year. In that case, after 20 years a portfolio could be worth one million dollars. Who, I ask you, wants to expose this portfolio to a half-million dollar loss? If an investor has already been investing for 20 years, do they really have another 20 to catch up?
It has been argued that returns are usually much higher than average following a bear market. Yes, that is usually true, but I found that the time in which a 100/0 portfolio can catch up to an 80/20 is dependent on what the actual returns are for both equities and fixed income. I calculated the catch-up time again using actual return data from the years following the 1973-1974 bear market. While the high equity returns of 1975 and 1976 (37.2% and 24%) did a lot to close the gap, the 100/0 portfolio was still behind after 10 years and actually lost ground in a few of those years. What the results reflect in all cases is that when a portfolio gets very large, the catch-up rate gets quicker using high return rates. But the inverse is also true?the lower the returns the longer the catch-up rate and the less incentive there should be to be 100% in stock.
The reason is that a bear market loss remains at 50% while the returns of a 100/0 portfolio and an 80/20 get closer together as market returns get lower. Admittedly, this is not a well-defined study, but I do think it conveys a message for the smart investor: holding a 100/0 portfolio within 10-15 years of retirement is simply not wise.
The reason that an 80/20 portfolio can do so well is that it isn't all or nothing. The 20% that isn't in the market is still adding something to portfolio returns. And don't forget, it takes a gain of 100% to make up for a 50% loss and a 54% gain to make up for a 35% loss.
So, it would seem that for most investors, reasonable minimum and maximum holdings in stock is somewhere between 20% and 80%. How much risk a person can tolerate is a personal matter and in the final analysis, what you choose has to not only pass the sleep test, but the decision must be based on an accurate evaluation of risk for your unique situation.
One last note on choosing an allocation: Kahneman and Tversky discovered in their research study5 that a loss of $1 is approximately twice as painful to investors as a gain of $1 is pleasant. This simply means that making a dollar is fine, but losing one causes some grief.
http://investingessentials.blogspot.com/
To say you will be 100% stocks until 5 years until retirement is complete market timing. If you have a bear market "5 years" before you retire, you now lost 40-50% of your investment and will have to sell your stocks at the lowest point in order to reach the "asset allocation" you desire "5 years" before you retire, locking in the losses from the bear market.
The following is just more paragraphs from the link I just previously pasted from last post.
It is highly likely that at least one major bear will hit investors over a 30 year period. Nine of the 10 biggest bear losses were between 45% and 50%. I used 50% as happened in the 1970's. Data from Larry Swedroe shows losses compared to asset allocation for that period:
100/0 portfolio = 50% loss, 80/20 portfolio = 35% loss,
I assumed an investor had yearly constant contributions to a retirement account of $4000 ($333/month) beginning with 0 assets.
If a major bear market happens after 5 years of investing:A 100/0 portfolio grows to $26,199, then gets a 50% loss = $13,099
An 80/20 portfolio grows to $25,854, then gets a 35% loss = $16,805
How long does it take the 100/0 portfolio to catch back up to the 80/20%?
It takes the 100/0 portfolio 20 years to get even with the 80/20.
20 years later...
The 100/0 portfolio begins with $13,099 after the bear and grows to $381,578 at 10.6%
The 80/20 portfolio begins with $16,805 after the bear and grows to $381,789 at 10.1%
Note. Accumulation of assets is more important than high returns when starting out. Losing half after 5 years really puts you in a hole.
--------------------------------
If a major bear market happens after 20 years investing:A 100/0 portfolio grows to $273,460 then gets a 50% loss = $136,730
An 80/20 portfolio grows to $256,174 then gets a 35% loss = $166,513
Again, it takes the 100/0 portfolio 20 years to get even....
The 100/0 portfolio begins with $136,730 after the bear and grows to $1,402,022 at 10.6%
The 80/20 portfolio begins with $166,513 after the bear and grows to $1,500,836 at 10.1%
In this example, I've used an investment rate of $4000 per year. But in reality, because of employer plans like 401(k)s, the investment rate might be $15,000 per year. In that case, after 20 years a portfolio could be worth one million dollars. Who, I ask you, wants to expose this portfolio to a half-million dollar loss? If an investor has already been investing for 20 years, do they really have another 20 to catch up?
It has been argued that returns are usually much higher than average following a bear market. Yes, that is usually true, but I found that the time in which a 100/0 portfolio can catch up to an 80/20 is dependent on what the actual returns are for both equities and fixed income. I calculated the catch-up time again using actual return data from the years following the 1973-1974 bear market. While the high equity returns of 1975 and 1976 (37.2% and 24%) did a lot to close the gap, the 100/0 portfolio was still behind after 10 years and actually lost ground in a few of those years. What the results reflect in all cases is that when a portfolio gets very large, the catch-up rate gets quicker using high return rates. But the inverse is also true?the lower the returns the longer the catch-up rate and the less incentive there should be to be 100% in stock.
The reason is that a bear market loss remains at 50% while the returns of a 100/0 portfolio and an 80/20 get closer together as market returns get lower. Admittedly, this is not a well-defined study, but I do think it conveys a message for the smart investor: holding a 100/0 portfolio within 10-15 years of retirement is simply not wise.
The reason that an 80/20 portfolio can do so well is that it isn't all or nothing. The 20% that isn't in the market is still adding something to portfolio returns. And don't forget, it takes a gain of 100% to make up for a 50% loss and a 54% gain to make up for a 35% loss.
So, it would seem that for most investors, reasonable minimum and maximum holdings in stock is somewhere between 20% and 80%. How much risk a person can tolerate is a personal matter and in the final analysis, what you choose has to not only pass the sleep test, but the decision must be based on an accurate evaluation of risk for your unique situation.
One last note on choosing an allocation: Kahneman and Tversky discovered in their research study5 that a loss of $1 is approximately twice as painful to investors as a gain of $1 is pleasant. This simply means that making a dollar is fine, but losing one causes some grief.
LegendKiller
Lifer
Anybody can play "what-if" with differing time periods before and after a downturn, utilizing poor extraction techniques that don't even get close to real statistical methodologies. Of course, you could say that 5-years out I could be in the middle of a bear, but I could also bei n the middle of a bull. I guess it all depends and I will react to the market, but I won't be anywhere near bonds until I know I am going to retire near a certain year.
Let's suppose that you didn't have that $100k laying around to cover the loan, but instead you were able to generate an extra $500, $1000, or $2000 per month. You have a choice between adding this money to your investment incrementally, or adding it to your monthly loan payment to be applied directly to the principle.
Does it still work out the same, i.e. you would still be better off putting that money into an index or mutual fund rather than paying down the loan?
Bank of America Platinum -$3,435.57
Hawaiian Airlines Platinum -$888.68
Discount Tire -$341.41
Household Bank-$218.03
Orchard Bank -$496.46
Dell DPA -$429.86
Newegg Preferred acct -$1,887.98
Missionfed Line of Credit acct -$400.00
Missionfed Visa Classic acct -$400.00
Guitar Center -$1,000.00
Total -$9,497.99
It's gonna be fun paying this off. I hate myself more and more everyday now that I realized what I did.
Hawaiian Airlines Platinum -$888.68
Discount Tire -$341.41
Household Bank-$218.03
Orchard Bank -$496.46
Dell DPA -$429.86
Newegg Preferred acct -$1,887.98
Missionfed Line of Credit acct -$400.00
Missionfed Visa Classic acct -$400.00
Guitar Center -$1,000.00
Total -$9,497.99
It's gonna be fun paying this off. I hate myself more and more everyday now that I realized what I did.
I know in Canada interest on school loans are tax deductible I don't know how it is in the US. But if you're getting more in a savings account than the interest rated for your loan, why pay it off if it is fixed? I would understand if it was not a fixed one then yes, pay the variable first.
LegendKiller
Lifer
It'll work out in the same general way, but you won't have as much money in the end. As long as your investment rate is higher than your costs, then it's always advantageous to not pay off a loan.
alkemyst
No Lifer
We had a few times in this country when the dollar was declared worthless, worldwide there have been several.
Also land ownership now is under annex of the government. If they want your land you have little to avoid them taking it.
The original banking households do have quite a bit of influenece on world banking.
Conspiracy theory is one thing, but thinking there is no way your government can ever screw you is even worse IMHO.
People don't get robbed, have their house burn down, get into accidents everyday and sometimes ever; yet most will carry insurance and pay heavily to do so.
alkemyst
No Lifer
You can spout out all you want, but you don't even acknowledge common things and when someone brings them up you talk as if you are some champion hedge fund manager about how you'd see the writing on the wall and reinvest.
You are sounding just like all the real-estate hotshots from 5-7 years ago that have now either lost their a$$ or are in the process of it.
What has been your average yield on portfolios you are the sole manager of? What have you invested in and for how long and why?
alkemyst
No Lifer
It's a smart move. I made the mistake when I was younger to pay off debts and close the cards. In about 10 or so years I have brought $40k in debt down to under $10k with a large sum being added back on to it when I went back to college for 2 years for another BA degree.
My credit score is solely driven by my balances now. It rises majorly when I drop below $10k (with about $21000 available) and sinks like an anchor when my balances go over $10k. At the 50% mark debt to credit limit, FICO nails you.
If I would have left the rest of the accounts open I would be hovering around the 25% mark on debt/limit and my score would stay high.
Good advice. I am paying another $2500 to a card to take that to $0. I want to throw more money at them but I just bought a house so until I am clear of any surprises I don't want to leave myself no cash.
LegendKiller
Lifer
What common things? I'd love you to point out a common item that I haven't been able to shoot down quite easily.
I am not a champion for a hedge fund, I am a VP at a yankee bank. I am not a transactor, but on a 4-man team, I help them get their deals done, I am involved in collateral analysis, cashflow modeling, corporate due-diligence, interfacing with the rating agencies on structural negotiations...etc. Been doing it for ~4yrs and I am pretty good at it.
Now, as far as me sounding like a RE "hotshot". I'd love for you to point out where I have said ALL debt is good. Furthermore, I'd love to see anybody point out where I buy into trends. Considering my whole point is built on making more than you pay, and long term investing, you're going to find it impossible to do it. I have also advocated paying down all CC debt if the IR isn't 0% or anything like that.
Go ahead and read between the lines, make interpretations, and talk smack. However, if you look at all of my posts, all of the things you accuse me of are nothing but BS FUD.
Considering it's illegal to give specific info on my bank's conduit, I won't give you any info. However, I will tell you that I have provided the entire structural analysis for about 10bn in securitization deals in the last 4 years. This was both on the Issuer and Underwriter side, issuer side at Fortune 100 companies.
If you want to debate "common items", then bring them on.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
