How ya'll coping with portfolio drawdowns?

[73 Reds]

12 minutes ago, shhughes1116 said:

I attribute my 2025 return to luck.  It will never happen again.   
 

Mining is one of the few areas in the market that I am allowed to invest in.  In 2025, I batted nearly 100% on junior miners.  Take a look at my Canadian Copper thread - that is one example and one reason for my 2025 return.  

Mind if I ask why you are not permitted to invest in nearly any industry?  Or if it is worth it?  

[Gregmal]

1 hour ago, thepupil said:

 

to be clear, i don't think i "need" $20mm. to be completely immune to a 50% drawdown though and be investing with "money i don't need"...i might. 

 

 

 

I’m fairly certain we ve had this convo a few times over the now growing number of years at this place, and it usually involved me saying all one needed was to own their house free and clear and have a half

mil or so in the bank, and you listing a bunch of future expenses, in aggregate plus a lotta stuff like private schools, multiple years of college, grad school, even (iirc) nannies and stuff; is that still part of your calcs here? 
 

Im just curious because over the years I don’t think anything’s changed my opinion on this, so curious if it has changed yours at all. I’ve also found it super interesting moving, and seeing regionally how people behave differently. IE everyone in the Northeast in large part makes more money than the folks where I live now, but they’re all levered to this and shit and basically stuck constantly paying for shit. Vs people here, most own their homes mortgage free, and buy building lots with their savings and shit like that, while more or less doing what they want with their daily lives. It’s been kinda crazy to observe. 

[shhughes1116]

22 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Mind if I ask why you are not permitted to invest in nearly any industry?  Or if it is worth it?  

I work for a regulatory agency.  I am prohibited from investing in companies that derive revenue from regulated activities.  I’m also prohibited from investing in some basic materials that could be inputs for these regulated activities.   In practice and enforcement, this prohibition extends way beyond the directly regulated activities.  
 

I'm not sure I follow the question about whether it is worth it.  I tolerate the prohibition because I generally like what I do and I like the people I work with.  I stick around because I think I can convince people here that many compliance issues across regulated industries can be solved by additional transparency and information sharing (cheap and easy to effectuate), rather than new regs/guidance (expensive for industry to implement and expensive to verify compliance). 

Edited April 29 by shhughes1116

[73 Reds]

26 minutes ago, shhughes1116 said:

I work for a regulatory agency.  I am prohibited from investing in companies that derive revenue from regulated activities.  I’m also prohibited from investing in some basic materials that could be inputs for these regulated activities.   In practice and enforcement, this prohibition extends way beyond the directly regulated activities.  
 

I'm not sure I follow the question about whether it is worth it.  I tolerate the prohibition because I generally like what I do and I like the people I work with.  I stick around because I think I can convince people here that many compliance issues across regulated industries can be solved by additional transparency and information sharing (cheap and easy to effectuate), rather than new regs/guidance (expensive for industry to implement and expensive to verify compliance). 

Thanks for sharing.  Wasn't trying to pry into your personal life; just wondering what occupation would prohibit most equity investments, and why.  In my experience, most people's net worths are derived from gains generated from investments rather than direct compensation, which would make prohibition against such investments quite costly in the long run.  Hence my question as to whether it is worth it.  

Edited April 29 by 73 Reds
spelling

[SharperDingaan]

18 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

I’m fairly certain we ve had this convo a few times over the now growing number of years at this place, and it usually involved me saying all one needed was to own their house free and clear and have a half

mil or so in the bank, and you listing a bunch of future expenses, in aggregate plus a lotta stuff like private schools, multiple years of college, grad school, even (iirc) nannies and stuff; is that still part of your calcs here? 
 

Im just curious because over the years I don’t think anything’s changed my opinion on this, so curious if it has changed yours at all. I’ve also found it super interesting moving, and seeing regionally how people behave differently. IE everyone in the Northeast in large part makes more money than the folks where I live now, but they’re all levered to this and shit and basically stuck constantly paying for shit. Vs people here, most own their homes mortgage free, and buy building lots with their savings and shit like that, while more or less doing what they want with their daily lives. It’s been kinda crazy to observe. 

 

+1 

 

Once the mortgage and car is paid off, you're just left with insurance and living expenses .... not that much for most folks. While medical and vacation will increase that, most of it is also discretionary. That 500K stash, plus a paid off house; more than enough for most contingency purposes.

 

Leaving things for the kids ? ..... you already have; it's what's in their heads, net of student loans paid off. After that, you're helping grand kids via seeded accounts, and 15 yrs+ runway ahead of them; not much required. 

 

Not the fear put out by the industry, to get you to save .

 

SD 

 

[thepupil]

32 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

I’m fairly certain we ve had this convo a few times over the now growing number of years at this place, and it usually involved me saying all one needed was to own their house free and clear and have a half

mil or so in the bank, and you listing a bunch of future expenses, in aggregate plus a lotta stuff like private schools, multiple years of college, grad school, even (iirc) nannies and stuff; is that still part of your calcs here? 
 

Im just curious because over the years I don’t think anything’s changed my opinion on this, so curious if it has changed yours at all. I’ve also found it super interesting moving, and seeing regionally how people behave differently. IE everyone in the Northeast in large part makes more money than the folks where I live now, but they’re all levered to this and shit and basically stuck constantly paying for shit. Vs people here, most own their homes mortgage free, and buy building lots with their savings and shit like that, while more or less doing what they want with their daily lives. It’s been kinda crazy to observe. 

 

I view FU money as 300*monthly

 

so $5K=$1.5mm, $10K =$3mm, $20K=$6mm, $30K = $9mm 

 

if anything, AI uncertainty around employment has probably brought my number up over time..

 

i don't know if my thoughts have changed....all i know is i don't feel like i have FU money and if i paid my mortgage off tomorrow, I'd have a lot more than $500K left so my FU number is much higher. 

[Gregmal]

23 minutes ago, thepupil said:

 

I view FU money as 300*monthly

 

so $5K=$1.5mm, $10K =$3mm, $20K=$6mm, $30K = $9mm 

 

if anything, AI uncertainty around employment has probably brought my number up over time..

 

i don't know if my thoughts have changed....all i know is i don't feel like i have FU money and if i paid my mortgage off tomorrow, I'd have a lot more than $500K left so my FU number is much higher. 

Idk maybe we are also talking about different things as well, or using different terminology. FU money kinda implies, to me, asshole money. Where you live excessively, don’t really contribute in any way to society, etc. Which is not to say folks who do that, are assholes, just that that’s what FU money is; where you can basically just do whatever without repercussion or concern for expenses.
 

This is similar, but definitely not the same thing as have enough to control your destiny/own your time/not need to slave away for someone else to earn a paycheck. I think $20-30k a month, if it’s “what one NEEDS”, implies a fairly lavish lifestyle. Even if you live in a high tax state, a $35k annual property tax bill is $3k a month. Insurance probably 1% of the home value. Whole Foods if you’re above Aldi or whatever, $1500 a month? Otherwise, idk there’s gotta be some stuff like 4 figure car payments and 5 figure vacations in there that are entirely discretionary. 
 

 

Edited April 29 by Gregmal

[Red Lion]

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

I’m fairly certain we ve had this convo a few times over the now growing number of years at this place, and it usually involved me saying all one needed was to own their house free and clear and have a half

mil or so in the bank, and you listing a bunch of future expenses, in aggregate plus a lotta stuff like private schools, multiple years of college, grad school, even (iirc) nannies and stuff; is that still part of your calcs here? 
 

Im just curious because over the years I don’t think anything’s changed my opinion on this, so curious if it has changed yours at all. I’ve also found it super interesting moving, and seeing regionally how people behave differently. IE everyone in the Northeast in large part makes more money than the folks where I live now, but they’re all levered to this and shit and basically stuck constantly paying for shit. Vs people here, most own their homes mortgage free, and buy building lots with their savings and shit like that, while more or less doing what they want with their daily lives. It’s been kinda crazy to observe. 

 

 

I know this wasn't directed to me, but your response certainly resonates on a number of areas. I do own my primary home free and clear, and I tend to think that most of these expenses can toggle down dramatically. For example, if you're just living off of investments, wtf would you need a nanny. If you're busy working full time and didn't have a layoff, presumably you could still wait until markets recover with no need to dip into principal. Private school I kinda get depending on the situation, but it's got to be a pretty insane expected value from private school to drop $20-$40k a year for 12 years. I haven't ever personally seen that level of value. My (public school educated) daughter's college roommate went to one of these private schools, which kind of proves (in my mind) that it's a huge waste of money in the first place. 

 

This same rationale applies to lots of expenses. If you had a 50% drawdown and are laid off, maybe you go to the ChatGPT extension of culinary school, and start makes great meals with affordable ingredients (just look at French food, it's mostly cheap to make and considered the poshest stuff to stuff your face with). Postpone the Fiji trip until your portfolio recovers; etc. etc. 

 

If you're laid off, and also having a 50% drawdown, seems like the kids could take student loans for grad school, and parents could help pay those loans off after portfolio recovers. 

 

Personally I want my kids to pay their own way for college (or take loans), and I will be giving them comparable amounts of money to use as downpayments for first homes or possibly to start/buy a business if applicable. I think it's good for kids to have skin in the game, so they don't dick around studying women's studies (is it trans studies now?) or something of the sort. 

 

If you operate under the assumption that your kids are helpless and need to be taken care of for the rest of their lives, presumably the same things applies for your grandchildren as well, and on it goes. 

 

Really the big exception I would see to these points would be if you had a severely disabled child or spouse that requires in home care that's not covered by insurance. 

[KCLarkin]

But drawdowns and FU money are different things. And your FU money needs to factor in potential drawdowns anyway. For example, the 4% withdrawal rate "rule" was selected based on historical "worst case" drawdowns.

 

If you have $6M earning $20k/month. And then drawdown (not impairment) to $3M, you are still earning $20k/month. 

 

If you can't withstand a 50% drawdown, you need to invest conservatively and your FU number (or FIRE number) must be higher.

 

 

[thepupil]

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

Idk maybe we are also talking about different things as well, or using different terminology. FU money kinda implies, to me, asshole money. Where you live excessively, don’t really contribute in any way to society, etc. Which is not to say folks who do that, are assholes, just that that’s what FU money is; where you can basically just do whatever without repercussion or concern for expenses.
 

This is similar, but definitely not the same thing as have enough to control your destiny/own your time/not need to slave away for someone else to earn a paycheck. I think $20-30k a month, if it’s “what one NEEDS”, implies a fairly lavish lifestyle. Even if you live in a high tax state, a $35k annual property tax bill is $3k a month. Insurance probably 1% of the home value. Whole Foods if you’re above Aldi or whatever, $1500 a month? Otherwise, idk there’s gotta be some stuff like 4 figure car payments and 5 figure vacations in there that are entirely discretionary. 
 

 

w/o further crowding this thread w/ my irrelevant personal hangups, in the end, I want $2mm ($1mm/kid) more of present value than someone who doesn't wish to help their children w/ down payment/grad school/whatever, has free childcare, and uses all public school. i either go get that or pay as i go by working. 

 

i think other than that, we're not that different in our thoughts on this and yes, we're talking about 2 different things. i'm thinking the number where i'd feel comfy of both of us exiting the workforce...you're talking about a number which provides some flexibility. 

[73 Reds]

58 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

 

 

I know this wasn't directed to me, but your response certainly resonates on a number of areas. I do own my primary home free and clear, and I tend to think that most of these expenses can toggle down dramatically. For example, if you're just living off of investments, wtf would you need a nanny. If you're busy working full time and didn't have a layoff, presumably you could still wait until markets recover with no need to dip into principal. Private school I kinda get depending on the situation, but it's got to be a pretty insane expected value from private school to drop $20-$40k a year for 12 years. I haven't ever personally seen that level of value. My (public school educated) daughter's college roommate went to one of these private schools, which kind of proves (in my mind) that it's a huge waste of money in the first place. 

 

This same rationale applies to lots of expenses. If you had a 50% drawdown and are laid off, maybe you go to the ChatGPT extension of culinary school, and start makes great meals with affordable ingredients (just look at French food, it's mostly cheap to make and considered the poshest stuff to stuff your face with). Postpone the Fiji trip until your portfolio recovers; etc. etc. 

 

If you're laid off, and also having a 50% drawdown, seems like the kids could take student loans for grad school, and parents could help pay those loans off after portfolio recovers. 

 

Personally I want my kids to pay their own way for college (or take loans), and I will be giving them comparable amounts of money to use as downpayments for first homes or possibly to start/buy a business if applicable. I think it's good for kids to have skin in the game, so they don't dick around studying women's studies (is it trans studies now?) or something of the sort. 

 

If you operate under the assumption that your kids are helpless and need to be taken care of for the rest of their lives, presumably the same things applies for your grandchildren as well, and on it goes. 

 

Really the big exception I would see to these points would be if you had a severely disabled child or spouse that requires in home care that's not covered by insurance. 

Having been through all this, one of my priorities was to provide my children with opportunities that I didn't have.  Naive?  Maybe, but they turned out well.  The problem with trying to come up with a specific number is that everyone's priorities and lifestyle choices are different.  I never had a paying "job" that paid me even six figures a year.  Yet by the time my kids were in school, I needed $100k (2x/year!) just to pay tuitions, an equal amount or more for taxes and a good chunk for charitable gifting that became important to me.  All before the first dime that was needed for "necessities".  Again, its all about priorities.  The numbers discussed in this thread for FU money or just to be comfortable would not have lasted us even a school year and we've always lived a very modest lifestyle, focusing more on travel and experiences rather than material items.  Investments comprise most of my material items and always will because as I was able to afford something pricey or extravagant, I stopped wanting it. 

[Red Lion]

13 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Having been through all this, one of my priorities was to provide my children with opportunities that I didn't have.  Naive?  Maybe, but they turned out well.  The problem with trying to come up with a specific number is that everyone's priorities and lifestyle choices are different.  I never had a paying "job" that paid me even six figures a year.  Yet by the time my kids were in school, I needed $100k (2x/year!) just to pay tuitions, an equal amount or more for taxes and a good chunk for charitable gifting that became important to me.  All before the first dime that was needed for "necessities".  Again, its all about priorities.  The numbers discussed in this thread for FU money or just to be comfortable would not have lasted us even a school year and we've always lived a very modest lifestyle, focusing more on travel and experiences rather than material items.  Investments comprise most of my material items and always will because as I was able to afford something pricey or extravagant, I stopped wanting it. 

 

I agree that these numbers are so individualized that it's hard to even discuss. 

 

But I think a lot of parents end up in this rabbit hole where they need to send their kids to the best prep school, to get into the best undergrad school, so they can get into the best grad school or professional school. 

 

I work in a profession where I've seen a LOT of those "rich kids" where the parents spent enough money to buy a house on their educations. Out of the most successful people I see, it's very seldom the rich kid who went to the IVY league. The more common thread is rich kid who went to an IVY league, then went to a lower tier grad/professional school, then falls right at the middle of the pack in terms of career performance. 

 

One of the most successful people I know went from community college to state college to state medical school to Harvard and Yale for residencies/internships. 

 

I know this is all anecdotal, and I'm certain there are anecdotal experiences to the contrary of what I'm saying here. 

 

But this is what informs my decision. If a kid wants to become an engineer/doctor/lawyer/teacher/researcher/computer scientist, I don't even think there's a real world benefit to going to Harvard or Stanford or one of the similarly applauded schools. 

 

I told my kids that if they get into MIT I'll pay for it, because not going to MIT after somehow getting in would be a tragedy. But in reality, if a hypothetical kid gets into MIT, but mom and dad won't pay, they can't get financial aid, and they decide to go to a state school instead to avoid borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars, I suspect this hypothetical kid is probably going to be wildly successful since they're already wicked smart, and financially minded. 

 

If you want your kid to be an investment banker or hedge fund manager, maybe it would be worth the IVY league money, I don't really know since I don't have any connection to that world. 

[Seoshin]

I'm loving reading this thread. Keep it up guys. I'm waiting for @dealraker as well as for sure he will have tons to share too if permitted.

[Gregmal]

4 minutes ago, Seoshin said:

I'm loving reading this thread. Keep it up guys. I'm waiting for @dealraker as well as for sure he will have tons to share too if permitted.

Charlie’s probably out on the $300k Nautique trading predictions markets on the next Trump manufactured crisis!

[73 Reds]

6 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

 

I agree that these numbers are so individualized that it's hard to even discuss. 

 

But I think a lot of parents end up in this rabbit hole where they need to send their kids to the best prep school, to get into the best undergrad school, so they can get into the best grad school or professional school. 

 

I work in a profession where I've seen a LOT of those "rich kids" where the parents spent enough money to buy a house on their educations. Out of the most successful people I see, it's very seldom the rich kid who went to the IVY league. The more common thread is rich kid who went to an IVY league, then went to a lower tier grad/professional school, then falls right at the middle of the pack in terms of career performance. 

 

One of the most successful people I know went from community college to state college to state medical school to Harvard and Yale for residencies/internships. 

 

I know this is all anecdotal, and I'm certain there are anecdotal experiences to the contrary of what I'm saying here. 

 

But this is what informs my decision. If a kid wants to become an engineer/doctor/lawyer/teacher/researcher/computer scientist, I don't even think there's a real world benefit to going to Harvard or Stanford or one of the similarly applauded schools. 

 

I told my kids that if they get into MIT I'll pay for it, because not going to MIT after somehow getting in would be a tragedy. But in reality, if a hypothetical kid gets into MIT, but mom and dad won't pay, they can't get financial aid, and they decide to go to a state school instead to avoid borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars, I suspect this hypothetical kid is probably going to be wildly successful since they're already wicked smart, and financially minded. 

 

If you want your kid to be an investment banker or hedge fund manager, maybe it would be worth the IVY league money, I don't really know since I don't have any connection to that world. 

Totally agree about Ivy League but primarily because of ideologies there I don't agree with.  When you look at education as an investment in your children, the cost becomes secondary.  Of course its up to them to use the education wisely

[Seoshin]

6 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Charlie’s probably out on the $300k Nautique trading predictions markets on the next Trump manufactured crisis!

This gave me hearty laugh! haha

[Paarslaars]

Interesting discussion. While I don't have my house paid off, I really don't mind having a 500k loan at 2.42%...

 

However considering the loan, I am aiming for 1M, that would make 5% my living expenses. Without the loan I could indeed live off 0.5M. I don't need much, I like playing sports, good BBQ and the occasional good quality beer/rum. Any more than this brings me little additional joy...

 

That said, no chance I actually fully retire, I will just switch to making (less) money with things I love rather than doing a well paid middle management position.

 

I do intend to leave each of my kids 0.5M. The youngest for a house, the oldest for care (she is mentally disabled amongst other things and will need to live in a suitable facility once her mother and I are gone). Hopefully plenty of time for that though.

 

For me FU money is money where you can buy your way out of most of life's annoyances. No need to work, take public transportation, be anywhere I don't want to be (unless it is for the kids), etc... People often ask me empathically "it must be hard to raise a child with such a serious disability?". I usually tell them it is incredibly hard for people who don't have money, fortunately I am not one of them so it's fine.

[nsx5200]

Just be careful about planning to leave your kids a lot of money.  If you set their expectation as such, they can become entitled, which is much more dangerous than leaving them the money IMHO.  Just look at those Redstones, Murdoch, where a particular kid expect certain things but doesn't get it, and the family ends up getting destroyed.

 

In an ideal world, I want my kids capable enough to create their own space/standing in the world after receiving their "standard" college degree free of loans/obligation.  After that, they should have enough tools in their toolkit to figure the rest themselves.  Any extra help from us after that should be just icing on the cake.  I suspect they will get a lot more than icing on the cake at the end, but I don't want them to have that expectation.

 

The more interesting question that occupies my mind is what do I really want to leave them(and their future off springs) at the end?  Money/asset?  Attitude/philosophies?  And how to go about it?  Rituals/processes that will change over time?  How much of it should be in existing formal/legal mechanisms like trusts vs non-systematic mechanisms such as modern day tribal rituals?  How much influence into the future do we practically have, right now, and for how long?

 

It might be premature to think about these things, but life is strange that way, bad things happen when you least expect them to, so it's probably a good idea to start thinking about these things while it's still possible, and start setting things up.  Good ideas tend to come from distilling them, and the issue with legacy seems to be too important to be left to chance, IMHO.  This is especially true if you expect to have a bigger pot to leave behind, as it would be kind of sad for future generations to blow it/misuse it if the plan is to just leave them with it without some mechanism to prevent it.  Could be as simple as some guidance if you think you've instilled enough of the values in them.

 

Apologies for hijacking this thread for my rambling.

[Lazarus]

10 hours ago, shhughes1116 said:

All of your returns are likely better than mine over time.  I’m ok with that.  Clearly I’m leaving some returns on the table.  
 

If I am fully invested, whether that is in stocks or ETFs, it is very hard for me to be mentally present with my family.    When I die, my kids and wife aren’t gonna remember how much money I had, or the returns I had in 2021 or 2017 or any other specific year.  They will remember whether or not I was present with them.  And it is easier for me to be mentally present when I am in mostly cash and cash equivalents.  
 

we are all creatures of our past.  In my past, I watched a lot of people get really mentally f**cked up by the gfc.  I saw a lot of people, that should have retired to spend time with their spouse and kids,  continue working until they died because they lost a bunch of money.  I don’t need that in my life.  

 

This is a crazy way to think about investing. I understand not wanting to risk your nest egg in the market, and your investments shouldn't cause so much anxiety that you can't be present with your family. But that is the beauty of passive investing - just buy an ETF and forget about it. You are making yourself poor by not being in the game (assuming you have time to ride out the swings). I ran the numbers on ETF returns vs. savings returns. 

 

If you had the horrible luck of investing $1,000,000 in an SP500 ETF right at the peak of the GFC, it would have crashed down to $430,000 by March 2009. However, it would have recovered fully by early 2013 and would be worth about $6.7 million today.

 

If you were risk adverse and put that $1,000,000 in a savings account at the actual rates between 2007-2026, it would have grown to about $1.4 million.

[Gregmal]

4 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

If you were risk adverse and put that $1,000,000 in a savings account at the actual rates between 2007-2026, it would have grown to about $1.4 million.

Nah man, Cash is King!

[Red Lion]

7 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Totally agree about Ivy League but primarily because of ideologies there I don't agree with.  When you look at education as an investment in your children, the cost becomes secondary.  Of course its up to them to use the education wisely

 

I think we 100% agree philosophically, but I just have a little bit of a different approach. 

 

I think education is the best investment in our children, and that the cost is secondary too. 

 

But I think the University industrial complex doesn't have a stranglehold on education itself. I think that most education is achieved through reading, asking questions, experimentation and experience. Obviously, for most profession paths you need to play the college game. 

 

The winners of the college game often seem to be the ones that play the state schools to keep their cash costs lower. 

 

I read somewhere recently that dentists have some insane average student loan load. Obviously it's a great profession, and one that lends itself to entrepreneurship. If I had a kid that wanted to be a dentist, I feel like focusing on getting the credentials at the lowest debt load while saving that money to use towards buying or starting a dental practice would be a great move. Same idea for most of the other professional schools. 

 

Alternatively, if I had a kid who was well read, inquisitive, and possessing an innate curiosity, and they decided they wanted to become a plumber, I'm 100% ok with that. If they play their cards right they could well outperform the hypothetical dentist in every possible way (education included).

[Lazarus]

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

Nah man, Cash is King!

 

Ha ha.  You're right though, I should just mind my own business. 

Edited April 30 by Lazarus

[brobro777]

 

8 hours ago, Red Lion said:

 

I agree that these numbers are so individualized that it's hard to even discuss. 

 

But I think a lot of parents end up in this rabbit hole where they need to send their kids to the best prep school, to get into the best undergrad school, so they can get into the best grad school or professional school. 

 

I work in a profession where I've seen a LOT of those "rich kids" where the parents spent enough money to buy a house on their educations. Out of the most successful people I see, it's very seldom the rich kid who went to the IVY league. The more common thread is rich kid who went to an IVY league, then went to a lower tier grad/professional school, then falls right at the middle of the pack in terms of career performance. 

 

One of the most successful people I know went from community college to state college to state medical school to Harvard and Yale for residencies/internships. 

 

I know this is all anecdotal, and I'm certain there are anecdotal experiences to the contrary of what I'm saying here. 

 

But this is what informs my decision. If a kid wants to become an engineer/doctor/lawyer/teacher/researcher/computer scientist, I don't even think there's a real world benefit to going to Harvard or Stanford or one of the similarly applauded schools. 

 

I told my kids that if they get into MIT I'll pay for it, because not going to MIT after somehow getting in would be a tragedy. But in reality, if a hypothetical kid gets into MIT, but mom and dad won't pay, they can't get financial aid, and they decide to go to a state school instead to avoid borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars, I suspect this hypothetical kid is probably going to be wildly successful since they're already wicked smart, and financially minded. 

 

If you want your kid to be an investment banker or hedge fund manager, maybe it would be worth the IVY league money, I don't really know since I don't have any connection to that world. 

yea the better paths/outcomes I've seen were guys going public high school - instate tuition state school - great grad/professional schools and into lucrative jobs/careers. Best bang for the buck really

 

 

[Seoshin]

as this thread is veering off slightly already, anyone living in Southeast Asia and living off FU money?

[73 Reds]

10 hours ago, Red Lion said:

 

I think we 100% agree philosophically, but I just have a little bit of a different approach. 

 

I think education is the best investment in our children, and that the cost is secondary too. 

 

But I think the University industrial complex doesn't have a stranglehold on education itself. I think that most education is achieved through reading, asking questions, experimentation and experience. Obviously, for most profession paths you need to play the college game. 

 

The winners of the college game often seem to be the ones that play the state schools to keep their cash costs lower. 

 

I read somewhere recently that dentists have some insane average student loan load. Obviously it's a great profession, and one that lends itself to entrepreneurship. If I had a kid that wanted to be a dentist, I feel like focusing on getting the credentials at the lowest debt load while saving that money to use towards buying or starting a dental practice would be a great move. Same idea for most of the other professional schools. 

 

Alternatively, if I had a kid who was well read, inquisitive, and possessing an innate curiosity, and they decided they wanted to become a plumber, I'm 100% ok with that. If they play their cards right they could well outperform the hypothetical dentist in every possible way (education included).

+1