SOFI or PAYE?
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:56 pm
Edit
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=231418
Waiting for loan friendly legislation makes some sense; eliminating the tax-bomb or allowing refinancing of federal loans is plausible. But the interest rate on 6.X% loans won't allow you to inflate the loans away.JohannDeMann wrote:Different for everyone depending on circumstances and risk tolerance. I'm in the same boat as you, and I'm riding out PAYE. Hoping to inflate the loans away or some sort of loan friendly legislation.
But, since your payments are lower, you can be investing the extra money at 8% on average, or you could buy property that could appreciate. So the difference is probably less significant than 20-30k, plus you'd have a safety cushion if things go badly in biglaw (which would prevent you from running up high interest credit card debt).Anonanonymous wrote:It's hard for me to ignore this. The only thing making me question it is the tyranny of 8%. Basically the question is 4.5% in interest savings worth the safety net of federal loans + possibility of further loan friendly legislation. At 4.5% and 200,000, that's ballpark 20-30K in extra interest over a 5-7 year payment plan (assuming aggressive paydown).
Why on earth would you invest the money at an LOL 8% on average (good luck with that) when you can guarantee 7.9% by putting it towards payments?exitoptions wrote:But, since your payments are lower, you can be investing the extra money at 8% on average, or you could buy property that could appreciate. So the difference is probably less significant than 20-30k, plus you'd have a safety cushion if things go badly in biglaw (which would prevent you from running up high interest credit card debt).Anonanonymous wrote:It's hard for me to ignore this. The only thing making me question it is the tyranny of 8%. Basically the question is 4.5% in interest savings worth the safety net of federal loans + possibility of further loan friendly legislation. At 4.5% and 200,000, that's ballpark 20-30K in extra interest over a 5-7 year payment plan (assuming aggressive paydown).
Who's paying 7.9%? Mine are closer to 6%. Reasons: 1) safety cushion -- I know people who ran up huge credit card debt during unemployment at ~20%. 2) home purchase - tax savings plus capital gains (tax free) can be a pretty good investment depending on where you live.AllTheLawz wrote:Why on earth would you invest the money at an LOL 8% on average (good luck with that) when you can guarantee 7.9% by putting it towards payments?exitoptions wrote:But, since your payments are lower, you can be investing the extra money at 8% on average, or you could buy property that could appreciate. So the difference is probably less significant than 20-30k, plus you'd have a safety cushion if things go badly in biglaw (which would prevent you from running up high interest credit card debt).Anonanonymous wrote:It's hard for me to ignore this. The only thing making me question it is the tyranny of 8%. Basically the question is 4.5% in interest savings worth the safety net of federal loans + possibility of further loan friendly legislation. At 4.5% and 200,000, that's ballpark 20-30K in extra interest over a 5-7 year payment plan (assuming aggressive paydown).
The OP says he has 7.9%, as does anyone who took out PLUS loans before last year.exitoptions wrote:Who's paying 7.9%? Mine are closer to 6%. Reasons: 1) safety cushion -- I know people who ran up huge credit card debt during unemployment at ~20%. 2) home purchase - tax savings plus capital gains (tax free) can be a pretty good investment depending on where you live.AllTheLawz wrote:Why on earth would you invest the money at an LOL 8% on average (good luck with that) when you can guarantee 7.9% by putting it towards payments?exitoptions wrote:But, since your payments are lower, you can be investing the extra money at 8% on average, or you could buy property that could appreciate. So the difference is probably less significant than 20-30k, plus you'd have a safety cushion if things go badly in biglaw (which would prevent you from running up high interest credit card debt).Anonanonymous wrote:It's hard for me to ignore this. The only thing making me question it is the tyranny of 8%. Basically the question is 4.5% in interest savings worth the safety net of federal loans + possibility of further loan friendly legislation. At 4.5% and 200,000, that's ballpark 20-30K in extra interest over a 5-7 year payment plan (assuming aggressive paydown).
Yeah, the logic here appears sound. If I can last at least 3 years, that should be around 120K towards loans. At 4.5% looking at around 100K in loans remaining over a 7 year period. That should be doable even if shown the door without finding something comparable salary wise, right?AllTheLawz wrote:Umm.. half the interest rate? I'd definitely refi. I know TLS is embracing pessimism these days but the majority of people, even in this economy, exiting top firms exit into something making low six figures or very close to it. If you aggressively pay down debt for 3 years in biglaw you shouldn't have a problem paying minimum payments on the remainder at a 90-125k salary level. Even if you accidentally end up in a situation where you exit into something that can't handle the min payments even on a reduced principal then you are probably in a situation where having some debt hanging over you probably only marginally decreases your QOL anyway.
The only situation where it makes since to avoid the refi is if you have some public interest/public service plans in your future and your law school doesn't have an LRAP that will cover the debt (Harvard and Yale's definitely cover even private debt, don't know about the rest)
The S&P is up 113% since 2009... You may be doing something wrong. My index funds were up something like 20% every year for the last 3 years. And I bought a house in a major market that has increased in value (not to mention the tax savings of mortgage payments over rent). I'm telling you I've chosen paye and it ain't bad. As another poster said, it's way better to have nondischargable debt with the government than with a private lender. If the worst happens you have way more options with the Government, plus you'll have saved a decent chunk so you don't have to resort to food stamps if your firm lays you off. But I guess I'm more risk averse than a lot of people.AllTheLawz wrote: EDIT: Im scoffing at the idea of 8% b/c he is talking about a period of 4-5 years, not 20. I actually have funds invested right now and I'm getting more like 4% these last few years. Definitely not 8%.
Ehh you are right, I clicked the wrong tab, Ive been up on average more than 8% the last three years.. from 07-09 I got killed though so in terms of CAGR its way less than 8%.exitoptions wrote:The S&P is up 113% since 2009... You may be doing something wrong. My index funds were up something like 20% every year for the last 3 years. And I bought a house in a major market that has increased in value (not to mention the tax savings of mortgage payments over rent). I'm telling you I've chosen paye and it ain't bad. As another poster said, it's way better to have nondischargable debt with the government than with a private lender. If the worst happens you have way more options with the Government, plus you'll have saved a decent chunk so you don't have to resort to food stamps if your firm lays you off. But I guess I'm more risk averse than a lot of people.AllTheLawz wrote: EDIT: Im scoffing at the idea of 8% b/c he is talking about a period of 4-5 years, not 20. I actually have funds invested right now and I'm getting more like 4% these last few years. Definitely not 8%.
Your position of paying down debt aggressively is risk averse. It's a guaranteed 4.5% return. The risky position that takes balls is investing your money at an uncertain return, betting on legislation that is uncertain, betting on inflation that is uncertain, etc.AllTheLawz wrote:Ehh you are right, I clicked the wrong tab, Ive been up on average more than 8% the last three years.. from 07-09 I got killed though so in terms of CAGR its way less than 8%.exitoptions wrote:The S&P is up 113% since 2009... You may be doing something wrong. My index funds were up something like 20% every year for the last 3 years. And I bought a house in a major market that has increased in value (not to mention the tax savings of mortgage payments over rent). I'm telling you I've chosen paye and it ain't bad. As another poster said, it's way better to have nondischargable debt with the government than with a private lender. If the worst happens you have way more options with the Government, plus you'll have saved a decent chunk so you don't have to resort to food stamps if your firm lays you off. But I guess I'm more risk averse than a lot of people.AllTheLawz wrote: EDIT: Im scoffing at the idea of 8% b/c he is talking about a period of 4-5 years, not 20. I actually have funds invested right now and I'm getting more like 4% these last few years. Definitely not 8%.
I guess if risk aversion is your deal avoid the refi but that's being risk averse to an extreme degree. I didn't realize SoFi rates went that low, I'm definitely take the refi. There is a ~80% or so chance it saves me ~10-15k over 4 years for basically doing nothing. Also, they apparently offer their own version of forbearance.
I guess we're just averse to different risks. I'm more concerned with liquidity, and you're more concerned with long-term solvency. My point is that if you become insolvent in that you can't afford to pay you federal loans, you don't pay your federal loans. If you have no cash or equivalents, you don't eat.JohannDeMann wrote:
Your position of paying down debt aggressively is risk averse. It's a guaranteed 4.5% return. The risky position that takes balls is investing your money at an uncertain return, betting on legislation that is uncertain, betting on inflation that is uncertain, etc.
I think we are on the same side - pro PAYEexitoptions wrote:I guess we're just averse to different risks. I'm more concerned with liquidity, and you're more concerned with long-term solvency. My point is that if you become insolvent in that you can't afford to pay you federal loans, you don't pay your federal loans. If you have no cash or equivalents, you don't eat.JohannDeMann wrote:
Your position of paying down debt aggressively is risk averse. It's a guaranteed 4.5% return. The risky position that takes balls is investing your money at an uncertain return, betting on legislation that is uncertain, betting on inflation that is uncertain, etc.