Anonymous User wrote:Correct me if I am wrong (going off memory), isn't the extended graduated one the plan where your payments increase substantially in later years? So, for someone who will only be in big law max 5 years, couldn't those increased later payments financially strangle you (assuming your income is 150 or below pre-tax and leave big law with say, 50-100k in debt left)?
That's correct, and this should be a key factor if your debtload is huge and you indeed only plan to be in biglaw for a few years. That said, it is also generally true that the debt has to go away somehow - assuming you intend to pay it - so why not do it in the way that saves you the most money? The mandatory payments in the later years shouldn't cripple you, and over time this could save you thousands (and thousands) of dollars if you paid sticker.
My goal isn't to offer financial advice though. It depends on your circumstances. I just wanted to shed light on this option as it allows you to pay less in interest over the repayment of your loans and thus is attractive in a lot of circumstances.
Anonymous User wrote:Also another related question--when you say let the loan sit, does that mean you don't have to make payments on that loan or that you just pay the minimum on that loan and use excess cash towards high interest loans?
Your mandatory monthly payments are applied across all of your loans, unfortunately. It's just the extra money you can throw at your loans that you can put toward the higher interest ones.
Yet to see what happens when you finish paying off a loan, i.e. whether the mandatory payment reduces by a proportionate amount. I'm still paying off a full grad plus loan. I highly doubt things would be that fair/reasonable, however.
Fireworks2016 wrote:Can others elaborate on this idea? I guess I haven't seen this strategy presented before. Seems like there's no downside if you'll have the extra cash and actually follow through and toss it at the higher rate loans?
It's not an "idea" really. It's simply that this plan allows you to pay less in interest over your repayment because you apply less of your cash towards the lower interest loans.
The base logic to it all is the following: if you have an assortment of loans of varying interest rates, to pay the least amount in interest (i.e. to pay your debt off the quickest, i.e. to save the most money) you want to pay the highest interest one first, the second highest interest one second, and so forth until you're done.
I do present a certain "strategy" though, as you point out, to pay off your loans by selecting this plan. And indeed I haven't seen it on TLS either.
You're right: if it is 100% certain that you will follow through in paying off the full amount of your debt and it is 100% certain you will always have extra cash and be willing to apply it to your debt, there is no downside and in fact doing it any other way would be financially irresponsible. This plan saves you a significant amount of money is these are your circumstances.
Where you get into possible downsides is when you plan to get out of biglaw in a few years and want less in mandatory payments afterwards, have a small amount of debt and would rather invest than pay off your debt quickly, you're not responsible enough to pay off your loans with extra cash in the early years, and I suppose a host of other factors.
Personal finance is personal. I'm simply running with this idea of paying the higher interest loans first=less interest accruing.