That is why you shouldn't go to law school. :)

 

Lol! I had a full-ride my first year, but needed a 3.3 to maintain it. I got a 3.18 :(

 

So, I guess I'm still more fortunate than most

 

It is that damn b- curve. Where did you go to law school?

 

That part sucks. I know I struggled paying my loans until I quit practicing law. Funny how that worked out.

 

Cleveland-Marshall

Mine aren't that bad month to month.

 

But my last one matures when I'll be almost 46.

 

:-(

 

I'm supposed to be paying until I'm 52. But, paying at the rate I am, I should be done in 3-4 years, God willing.

 

Well, I could write a check and pay mine off tomorrow.  But I've got one at 1.625% and one at 3.5%.  Cheapest unsecured capital I'll ever get.  Heck, cheaper than a lot of secured capital I'm likely to get.  My mortgage is at 3.0% but it would have been higher if we hadn't done a 10-year mortgage and it will be higher again if we have to buy a place in the suburbs for a better school district, since we probably won't be able to swing a 10-year in a good suburb the way we can in Akron.  I'm in line for a Model 3 and most people on the Tesla boards say they got their financing in the 3%-ish range.  But those are also for 72-month loans, so I'd still rather pay that down more quickly.  I feel like the bank is practically giving me money at 3.5% 20-year unsecured, to say nothing of 1.625% (no way I'm ever paying that one off early, the bank is losing money to inflation on that one).

That's how the Trump family describes things. They add the full market value of the buildings to their "wealth" no matter how bigly leveraged they are.

^^ I don't yet have a mortgage, but my fiance is a homeowner, hence my rush. And I could write a check write now and pay down 5% of it  :'( :'( :'( :'(

That's how the Trump family describes things. They add the full market value of the buildings to their "wealth" no matter how bigly leveraged they are.

 

Oh, and the fact that the GE Employee Pension Fund owns the "Trump International Hotel".  It's just his fat name on it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(New_York_City)

 

From Wikipedia:

Between 1995 and 1997, the building was stripped to its skeleton.[citation needed] The building's new appearance was designed by Philip Johnson and Costas Kondylis.[8] Although the building stands at 44 stories, Trump had referred to it as being 52 stories. Trump explained that newer apartment buildings commonly had lower ceilings compared to office buildings, and stated that the 583-foot building was approximately as tall as a 60-floor building; the New York Times wrote, "Seen this way, measuring the converted tower at 52 floors was an act of altitudinal restraint."[9]

 

^^ I don't yet have a mortgage, but my fiance is a homeowner, hence my rush. And I could write a check write now and pay down 5% of it  :'( :'( :'( :'(

 

There is a new regulation that mortgage companies must take into account 1% of your overall student loan balance as the monthly payment (at minimum), regardless if that's your actual payment, when calculating your DTI ratio.  Just as an FYI in case you guys were going to apply for a new mortgage together in the next 3-4 years.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/07/retirement/millennial-retirement-savings/index.html

 

About 66% of people between the ages of 21 and 32 have absolutely nothing saved for retirement, according to the National Institute on Retirement Security. The report is based on Census data collected in 2014.

 

You're in the minority if you have money saved for retirement.

Whenever I read these threads I think about how grateful I am to be an outlier. It's unreal how much debt some of my friends are in.

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/lotto-winners/

 

Anyone here smart enough to take a look at some of the Ohio games? LOL

 

(It's a super long read on a guy/couple who won $7.75m playing state lotteries in Michigan and then Massachusetts because of a "windfall" kicker in those games.)

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/lotto-winners/

 

Anyone here smart enough to take a look at some of the Ohio games? LOL

 

(It's a super long read on a guy/couple who won $7.75m playing state lotteries in Michigan and then Massachusetts because of a "windfall" kicker in those games.)

 

 

That article was really entertaining.  It was great how the worlds of this nondescript couple and the MIT boys collided. 

 

My grandfather won a share of an $8 million Ohio Super Lotto jackpot a few years after he retired.  His workplace had a lottery pool that had hit 5 numbers at some point and kept going for several years with that cash even though my grandfather had retired.  So out of the blue he got a call saying that he had won.

 

The family was told about it at an otherwise typical afternoon cookout...we sort of thought they had won millions of dollars but instead it was probably more like $100,000, although I never heard the exact dollar amount.  There were two winners of that jackpot -- the work group only got half of the $8 million, and then I don't know how many people were in the group, so after taxes the haul was probably only a little over $2 million split between 20+ people. 

 

So what happened to that money?  They took the whole family on a cruise and gave the rest to the church.  Poof. 

Whenever I read these threads I think about how grateful I am to be an outlier. It's unreal how much debt some of my friends are in.

 

As soon as I got a job after college, I started putting all of my extra money towards paying off student loans, and was able to pay everything off a few years ago. It was fairly easy for me to do because I really only took out the bare minimum needed to pay for tuition, books, and living expenses. And I lived in a house near campus that I rented with three friends, where each of us paid less than $300/month in rent. It's much easier to rack up student loan debt if you're living in one of the fancy new apartment complexes that surround much college campuses today. The cheapest you can rent an apartment at USquare is $900/month for a studio.

That's so insane. I don't think I ever paid more than $375 a month in rent when I was at UC. There's no world where I would have paid $900 for some college apartment. Hell, my mortgage is less than that!

 

Co-op helped out a lot too. I would be able to work for a semester, pay off my highest-interest loans, and save a little bit for living expenses. I think my biggest purchases in five years was a $250 IKEA mattress and my Kings Island season passes. And now I'm planning to be student loan debt-free by the end of this year.

That's so insane. I don't think I ever paid more than $375 a month in rent when I was at UC. There's no world where I would have paid $900 for some college apartment. Hell, my mortgage is less than that!

 

Co-op helped out a lot too. I would be able to work for a semester, pay off my highest-interest loans, and save a little bit for living expenses. I think my biggest purchases in five years was a $250 IKEA mattress and my Kings Island season passes. And now I'm planning to be student loan debt-free by the end of this year.

 

I lived with a friend while attending the University of Tennessee in this house for $155/mo...yeah, my monthly share was $77.50:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9341539,-83.8666882,3a,75y,233.96h,77.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAfvDQFLI1CHzrvS0h5lM9g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Co-op helped out a lot too. I would be able to work for a semester, pay off my highest-interest loans, and save a little bit for living expenses. I think my biggest purchases in five years was a $250 IKEA mattress and my Kings Island season passes. And now I'm planning to be student loan debt-free by the end of this year.

 

Co-op and a part time job go a long way in college. I was able to pay all of my living expenses including things like books, supplies (more expensive than books as an architecture major), etc. as I went by saving money from co-op and working 20 to 30 hours a week at a car dealership. That was pretty hectic, though - when I graduated and got a full time job it was a pretty big relief knowing I'd only have to work about 45 hours or so a week. Between work and school I was probably tied up 80-90 hours a week. For me, that was proof that it's basically impossible for anyone to pay their way through school. Unless I omitted sleeping or lived in my car, there just weren't enough hours in the day to make that kind of money.

All,

 

I'm 27 and beginning my retirement savings with a 401(k) with a 2% employer match. I'm pretty risk averse; as such, how much risk would I be taking on by checking "moderate" for my risk tolerance box instead of conservative?

 

Thanks guys

At 27 with a potential for high income, you should probably go aggressive and I'd assume "aggressive" isn't as aggressive as it sounds. What are the actual investments that make up "moderate" and "conservative?" Are they proposing to manage everything for you?

 

If "aggressive" just means they are going to put you into stock market mutual funds, that's probably where you want to be. I'm a very risk averse person myself, age 29, but I can tolerate the risk of the stock market at this age... so yeah, tell us more.

At 27 with a potential for high income, you should probably go aggressive and I'd assume "aggressive" isn't as aggressive as it sounds. What are the actual investments that make up "moderate" and "conservative?" Are they proposing to manage everything for you?

 

If "aggressive" just means they are going to put you into stock market mutual funds, that's probably where you want to be. I'm a very risk averse person myself, age 29, but I can tolerate the risk of the stock market at this age... so yeah, tell us more.

 

The range is bonds, equities, currencies, futures, options, mutual funds, and partnerships

Yeah, at your age go as aggressive as possible - risk adverse or not.  You have a LONG time until retirement and can handle the swings.  And if the market takes a dip, you'll be buying low. 

 

Also - 2% employer match while better than nothing, is pretty terrible. 

Yeah, at your age go as aggressive as possible - risk adverse or not.  You have a LONG time until retirement and can handle the swings.  And if the market takes a dip, you'll be buying low. 

 

Also - 2% employer match while better than nothing, is pretty terrible.

 

Is it a match of 2% of income?  if so, that is not too bad.

^ Yes

At 27 with a potential for high income, you should probably go aggressive and I'd assume "aggressive" isn't as aggressive as it sounds. What are the actual investments that make up "moderate" and "conservative?" Are they proposing to manage everything for you?

 

If "aggressive" just means they are going to put you into stock market mutual funds, that's probably where you want to be. I'm a very risk averse person myself, age 29, but I can tolerate the risk of the stock market at this age... so yeah, tell us more.

 

The range is bonds, equities, currencies, futures, options, mutual funds, and partnerships

 

I am opinionated on the subject (though my opinion is by no means obscure) so I'll give you my opinion and you can seek out other opinions, but my opinion is that the only thing we should be investing in at our age is stock market index funds. I appreciate the simplicity of it and the low fees and I feel that financial managers over-complicate things, increasing their earnings but not earning the investor much more than average market returns. So if I were you I would opt to manage it myself if your 401(k) gives you the choice, and just put everything into an S&P index fund or total stock market index fund. If you want to read a little bit, this finance blogger's "stock series" is one of the best things I've read on the subject for lay investors. It's maybe a couple hours of reading.

 

http://jlcollinsnh.com/stock-series/

 

Also a little Warren Buffett advice: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/why-warren-buffett-says-index-funds-are-the-best-investment.html

Just make sure you pick a low cost fund.  Vanguard typically has great ones to join.  The management costs can end up in the thousands.

At 27 with a potential for high income, you should probably go aggressive and I'd assume "aggressive" isn't as aggressive as it sounds. What are the actual investments that make up "moderate" and "conservative?" Are they proposing to manage everything for you?

 

If "aggressive" just means they are going to put you into stock market mutual funds, that's probably where you want to be. I'm a very risk averse person myself, age 29, but I can tolerate the risk of the stock market at this age... so yeah, tell us more.

 

The range is bonds, equities, currencies, futures, options, mutual funds, and partnerships

 

I am opinionated on the subject (though my opinion is by no means obscure) so I'll give you my opinion and you can seek out other opinions, but my opinion is that the only thing we should be investing in at our age is stock market index funds. I appreciate the simplicity of it and the low fees and I feel that financial managers over-complicate things, increasing their earnings but not earning the investor much more than average market returns. So if I were you I would opt to manage it myself if your 401(k) gives you the choice, and just put everything into an S&P index fund or total stock market index fund. If you want to read a little bit, this finance blogger's "stock series" is one of the best things I've read on the subject for lay investors. It's maybe a couple hours of reading.

 

http://jlcollinsnh.com/stock-series/

 

Also a little Warren Buffett advice: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/why-warren-buffett-says-index-funds-are-the-best-investment.html

 

Thanks! We do not have the option to manage it on our own.

 

As such, I think I will go with moderate and maintain my Scottrade account on my own.

That is a bummer. Bad 401(k) plans with high fees and lack of options are a big problem - they basically provide mediocre products and get away with it because of general public ignorance on investing.

That is a bummer. Bad 401(k) plans with high fees and lack of options are a big problem - they basically provide mediocre products and get away with it because of general public ignorance on investing.

 

I'll have discretion on what is invested and will ultimately have decision power. But I won't be autonomous.

All,

 

I'm 27 and beginning my retirement savings with a 401(k) with a 2% employer match. I'm pretty risk averse; as such, how much risk would I be taking on by checking "moderate" for my risk tolerance box instead of conservative?

 

Thanks guys

 

Depends on the funds available to you.

 

At 27, I'm assuming you aren't planning on touching this money until at least 59.5 years old (unless there's a catastrophic emergency).  So 30 years, more or less, is your timeframe.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/08/stocks-bonds-performance.asp

 

I did some back-testing to 1995 (here - https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio#analysisResults) looking at a S&P 500 portfolio (VFINX), total bond portfolio (VBLTX), and a combo of them.  I started with 1995 since that is when VFINX began as a fund but I could go farther back with another fund that existed previously.

 

I said you would contribute $500 monthly, adjusted for inflation, and that the 3rd combo portfolio was to be re-balanced quarterly into 60% stocks / 40% bonds.

 

There is actually not much difference in the 100% stock portfolio vs. the 60/40 split (~$526K to ~$500K as of 12/31/17).  But the 100% bond fund lags over $100k behind after 22 years.

 

So to combat inflation and capture the growth potential stocks have, you need at least 50% in stocks probably even 60%.  Because bonds are more of a known entity, they will return less over the long-term.

 

The most important thing, whichever allocation you choose, is to make sure you invest regularly and don't stop investing if things get bad - that's when stocks go on sale.  Buy up the shares at a lower price.

I do the "aggressive" with my company's plan and, as another mentioned, it's not very aggressive and the fees are high.  A lot of people recommend contributing to your company fund to get the match, then maxing out an independent IRA before contributing more to your company plan. 

 

 

Executive summary: I recommend (1) Going Most Aggressive when asked about your risk tolerance, (2) filling your 401(k) as much as needed to maximize the match, then maximizing your Roth IRA contributions (if eligible), then maximizing your 401(k) contribution to the extent you can, and (3) in both accounts, putting as much as you can in low-cost equity index funds (S&P 500, Russell 2000, a little bit of large-cap international), unless you want to start really learning about individual stocks.

 

I started my 401(k) around age 27 as well.  I went Most Aggressive, and I don't regret it for a minute.  Granted, I was starting in the fall of 2009, which meant that a maximum concentration in equities at the expensive of bonds or more conservative estimates was an absolutely brilliant (by which I mean almost perfectly timed by complete accident) decision.

 

I second jmecklenborg's advice (or relayed advice) regarding maxing matching and then filling the IRA (a Roth IRA if your adjusted gross income, which might be less than your gross income, is under $120,000, or $189,000 if you're married filing jointly).  The IRA gives you more control and the ability to pick low-fee index funds, which mu2010 and ck are right are great places to begin stashing money in your early working life.  But if at all possible, maximize both.  I know that asking a 27-year-old to set aside $24,000 annually, $5500 of it post-tax, is a tall ask.  But your 10-years-older self will likely be very happy if you do, because of the nature of compound returns.  Basically, someone who successfully maxed retirement-account contributions from 21-30 (an even taller ask for a 21 year old, of course) and then completely stopped would have more saved at retirement than someone who maxed out from 31-59.5 but never saved in their twenties.  Compound returns really do reward starting early.  Enormously.

 

Also note this: I first started at an employer with a 401(k) plan in 2009 when I was 27.  However, I first started investing for my retirement in 2007 when I was 25, fresh out of law school, with my IRA.  Those first two years were awful; from 2007 to 2009 was basically from the peak to the trough of the Great Recession (March 2009 was the true trough).  If I'd just given up at that point, sold, left, and just saved in savings accounts or money markets or other "safe" places for money, I'd be a lot less financially secure today.  And I mean a lot, defined more specifically as "several multiples of my annual salary."  It's possible that you're in a similar situation today.  It's entirely possible that we're in a bubble, that the other shoe will drop on this charmed stock market just as you're starting to realize you've got a decent amount of money committed, and it'll be a roller coaster.  If you sell at all through that, be very careful on how much you do, because the bottom is just as easy to miss as the top without the benefit of hindsight in either case.

Agree on the maximizing 401k match, then Roth IRA to Max, then 401k as much as you can afford. Be aggressive as possible I am in my early 40s and still at 100% equities in retirement accounts. 

 

Low cost ETFs/ mutual funds are the way to go.  I like Vanguard.

Apologize for my ignorance, but aren't there penalties for jumping fro 401k to Roth?

^ we are suggesting that you contribute to both at the same time.  There are no penalties for this.  However, there are income limits to IRA contributions.

Low versus high is all academic until you actually experience it.  You aren't going to know what it feels like to hold onto to something that has appreciated wildly in value until it happens to you.  This could be stock, it could be a house, it could be something else.

 

You might buy low but it is very difficult to sell that thing at the high.  Look at all of the people who just blew it with bitcoin and the other cryptos. 

 

Apologize for my ignorance, but aren't there penalties for jumping fro 401k to Roth?

 

Believe they are saying invest the % required to get the company match (free money) - some employers require you to contribute x% of your income to get y% company match.

 

But if your 401k plan isn't great or comes with high fees, they are saying only do what is required to get y% match.  Outside of that, you can contribute to a Roth IRA or traditional IRA (depending on your income, if you qualify).  This gives you better fund options, lower fees, etc. especially through Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab because they all offer super low cost index funds of their own.

 

You could dollar cost average your IRA contribution - $105.77/week would max it out for the year, for example, if you started on 1/1/18.

 

If your question is converting your 401k to a Roth IRA, yes there will be gains (most likely) to recognize on that conversion.

Apologize for my ignorance, but aren't there penalties for jumping fro 401k to Roth?

 

There are and I'm not suggesting you do do that!  What I'm saying is that if you're making $100k (just to use round numbers) and your company is matching up to 2% of gross, contribute $2000 to the 401(k) to guarantee the maximum match (it's literally money left on the table otherwise), then contribute $5500 to the Roth IRA, then contribute the next $16,500 to the 401(k) if you can make that work in your budget.

 

So if $10k is the best you can do, contribute $4500 to the 401(k) and $5500 to the Roth (annual max).  If $15k is the best you can do, contribute $9500 to the 401(k) and $5500 to the Roth.  And if $5k is all you can do, do $2000 in the 401(k) and $3000 in the Roth (again assuming $100k gross salary so $2000 is 2%).

 

Converting is a tricky business.  My short advice is "don't," and if you're thinking there's some reason you might want to, get advice from someone who knows those rules better than I do.\

 

Agree on the maximizing 401k match, then Roth IRA to Max, then 401k as much as you can afford. Be aggressive as possible I am in my early 40s and still at 100% equities in retirement accounts. 

 

Low cost ETFs/ mutual funds are the way to go.  I like Vanguard.

 

I'm at something in the neighborhood of 80% equities, 20% cash and MMA (with the intent of using that to buy more equities if we have a few more days like today).  And honestly I'd probably have been better if I'd just invested that last 15-20% too and not tried to wait for Jack Sparrow's "opportune moment."

 

ETA: Back to the original question about conservative <-> moderate <-> aggressive <-> most aggressive, all that the more risk-averse strategies will have you do is put more in bonds.  It's entirely possible that the stock market is set for a downturn, considering how much it's run up and the sugar high from the tax cuts that can't last.  But that doesn't mean the stock market's loss will be the bond market's gain.  If the Fed is forced to raise interest rates, which could easily happen (they certainly can't go much lower), that actually hurts the existing bond market.  So the choice between "moderate" and "aggressive" in this environment is largely a choice between "this could screw you moderately hard, and there's not much upside" to "this could screw you ridiculously hard, but over the long term could let you retire with enough money to afford the therapy you'll need after this ride."

Goldman Sachs computer model warns bear market is near but the firm's analysts don't believe it

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/goldman-sachs-computer-model-warns-bear-market-is-near-but-the-firms-analysts-dont-believe-it.html

Average car loan now $35,000:

https://www.wcpo.com/money/consumer/dont-waste-your-money/average-new-car-now-30k-is-a-longer-loan-ok-

 

People are so, so stupid.  Yes, my car is paid off. 

Not sure this is the right thread, however ... there is a really good attack on the concept of the accounting fiction "goodwill" as a perpetual asset in today's Financial Times. Making goodwill an asset not subject to depreciation became a GAAP rule in 2005; and the lessons of 2008 didn't change a thing.  I've been associated with a couple of bankruptcy workouts and it's amazing how many sophisticated investors have no idea of how deceptive treating intangibles as an asset can be.

 

Worth a read:  https://www.ft.com/content/765fc482-68db-11e8-b6eb-4acfcfb08c11

Average car loan now $35,000:

https://www.wcpo.com/money/consumer/dont-waste-your-money/average-new-car-now-30k-is-a-longer-loan-ok-

 

People are so, so stupid.  Yes, my car is paid off. 

 

It's scary how many used cars are still close to $30,000.  My wife and I may be in the market for a minivan, because we're becoming those people.  A lot of decent used minivans, 2-3 years old, are still north of $25,000.  I've never had a car payment in my life (though I definitely will for the Model 3).  My credit union finances used vehicles 2015-2017 at 4.49% (older than that is 4.99%).  A $30,000 60-month 4.49% loan would be $559/mo., total loan cost $33,549.  That's more than my rent was coming out of law school (to say nothing of my share of rent when I had roommates).  And yet now we're seriously considering it.  Times change, I guess.  But no one ever said change was always in a sane direction.

 

Not sure this is the right thread, however ... there is a really good attack on the concept of the accounting fiction "goodwill" as a perpetual asset in today's Financial Times. Making goodwill an asset not subject to depreciation became a GAAP rule in 2005; and the lessons of 2008 didn't change a thing.  I've been associated with a couple of bankruptcy workouts and it's amazing how many sophisticated investors have no idea of how deceptive treating intangibles as an asset can be.

 

Worth a read:  https://www.ft.com/content/765fc482-68db-11e8-b6eb-4acfcfb08c11

 

Interesting, though you're probably right that this isn't quite the right thread, simply because personal finance doesn't generally have a "goodwill" component.  (Maybe it should.)  But I'm not actually financially worth more, in the sense of applying for an asset-based loan or otherwise stating my net worth, based on the fact that I'm brilliant and ridiculously good-looking. 8)

Average car loan now $35,000:

https://www.wcpo.com/money/consumer/dont-waste-your-money/average-new-car-now-30k-is-a-longer-loan-ok-

 

People are so, so stupid.  Yes, my car is paid off. 

 

It's scary how many used cars are still close to $30,000.  My wife and I may be in the market for a minivan, because we're becoming those people.  A lot of decent used minivans, 2-3 years old, are still north of $25,000.  I've never had a car payment in my life (though I definitely will for the Model 3).  My credit union finances used vehicles 2015-2017 at 4.49% (older than that is 4.99%).  A $30,000 60-month 4.49% loan would be $559/mo., total loan cost $33,549.  That's more than my rent was coming out of law school (to say nothing of my share of rent when I had roommates).  And yet now we're seriously considering it.  Times change, I guess.  But no one ever said change was always in a sane direction.

 

Not sure this is the right thread, however ... there is a really good attack on the concept of the accounting fiction "goodwill" as a perpetual asset in today's Financial Times. Making goodwill an asset not subject to depreciation became a GAAP rule in 2005; and the lessons of 2008 didn't change a thing.  I've been associated with a couple of bankruptcy workouts and it's amazing how many sophisticated investors have no idea of how deceptive treating intangibles as an asset can be.

 

Worth a read:  https://www.ft.com/content/765fc482-68db-11e8-b6eb-4acfcfb08c11

 

Interesting, though you're probably right that this isn't quite the right thread, simply because personal finance doesn't generally have a "goodwill" component.  (Maybe it should.)  But I'm not actually financially worth more, in the sense of applying for an asset-based loan or otherwise stating my net worth, based on the fact that I'm brilliant and ridiculously good-looking. 8)

 

I have found that used cars that are still under warranty command a huge premium.  IMHO, warranties are not worth the additional cost.  It's best to buy a reliable model and spend some money for a mechanic to look over the vehicle if it makes you more comfortable.  I like to buy cars that are just beyond the warranty and I have never yet had a lemon. 

Smaller cars are a lot cheaper used.  You can get a 2015 or 2016 Ford Focus with 30,000 miles on it for like $12,000. 

 

 

Smaller cars are a lot cheaper used.  You can get a 2015 or 2016 Ford Focus with 30,000 miles on it for like $12,000.

 

True.  And if you go a year or two older or higher mileage the price drops drastically.  That's my sweet spot. YMMV

What's happening in the used car market is that these days there is a gigantic disconnect between what the primary market wants and the secondary market wants. Over the past few years, so many new crossovers got sold that they started heavily overshadowing the minivans and sedans. The secondary market really likes sedans and minivans, but now 2-4 year old versions are in shorter supply due to the primary market's overconsumption of something the secondary market doesn't like.

 

Crossover buyers are setting themselves up for additional financial trouble since nobody wants the things when they're used. With a used car purchase it's a lot more likely that an "expert" will be consulted and experts (car guys) know crossovers are a joke. In addition, used car buyers tend to be a lot more pragmatic and avoid things like extra size, weight and complexity (witness the almost universial cursing of the used vehicle equipped with a moonroof). If a crossover is 5 years old and has 100,000 miles there's no market for it and the residual value is very low.

 

It's a whole different world with bigass trucks regarding irrationality, though, and that's why they hold their value much better.

 

 

Here Is Why You Shouldn’t Expect A Bargain On A Pre-Owned Sedan

 

According to a report in Automotive News, dealers and wholesalers are noticing an upward trend in priced for sedans and small cars in the $10,000 to $15,000 segment. The major problem, of course, is supply. The used car market is a reflection of the new car market; you can’t have pre-owned cars if no one buys them new. Since buyers have been flocking to crossovers and SUVs for the past several years instead of sedans, price-conscious shoppers looking for an affordable used four-door are facing a limited inventory.

 

https://jalopnik.com/here-is-why-you-shouldn-t-expect-a-bargain-on-a-pre-own-1826913932

 

Interesting, though you're probably right that this isn't quite the right thread, simply because personal finance doesn't generally have a "goodwill" component.  (Maybe it should.)  But I'm not actually financially worth more, in the sense of applying for an asset-based loan or otherwise stating my net worth, based on the fact that I'm brilliant and ridiculously good-looking. 8)

 

The GAAP theorists would say your looks and brilliance represent future earning power and should be valued as an asset; but try borrowing money on them.  ;)

 

Interesting, though you're probably right that this isn't quite the right thread, simply because personal finance doesn't generally have a "goodwill" component.  (Maybe it should.)  But I'm not actually financially worth more, in the sense of applying for an asset-based loan or otherwise stating my net worth, based on the fact that I'm brilliant and ridiculously good-looking. 8)

 

The GAAP theorists would say your looks and brilliance represent future earning power and should be valued as an asset; but try borrowing money on them.  ;)

 

Although, his looks may fade as he ages, so you have to account for that.  :D

A good used minivan is hard to find. Families drive them into the ground and they are the workhorses for them for years and kids destroy them. This is also not a vehicle that people drive for ego so they are not leasing them and replacing them every 3 years like expensive sedans

Whichever one we get, we're very likely to drive into the ground.  The hope is that whatever we get will last us through at least the whole young-children-with-bulky-car-seats phase of life, and maybe the older-kids-going-on-road-trips phase, too.

They last forever. For whatever reason the same engine or transmission that goes bang after 150-200k in a car, SUV or crossover will just keep going in the minivan model.

 

I think it's because minivans get so beat up that they keep running just to spite people who have to look at them.

Mt. Airy (esp Bahama Terrace) and Price Hill are the SW Ohio capitals of late 90s minivans that are somehow still operable. 

I think it's because minivans get so beat up that they keep running just to spite people who have to look at drive them even though they swore they'd never become one of those people.

 

FTFY.

https://www.refinery29.com/money-diary-new-york-city-marketing-intern-income

 

I can't.