site banner
birb_cromble  1mo ago (text post)   1044 thread views

Weekly Finance Thread - 2026-06-13

A weekly thread to discuss financial matters - from personal all the way up to global.

Ground Rules

  • Remember that we're all just Internet randos. Don't bet your life savings on a hot tip from this thread.
  • Keep culture war in the culture war thread. Yes, global events may impact our personal finances, but that does not mean we have to incessantly harp on culture war aspects here. If you are going to discuss it, please stick to the practical impacts of it on an individual level.
  • Be kind. Remember that everyone here comes from different circumstances. We all have different resources available and different risk tolerances.
  • Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Better is better. Celebrate people when they take a step up and work to move their finances in the right direction. Don't flame out because they haven't followed what you consider the optimal path. Everybody has to start somewhere.
3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-15/nvidia-kicks-off-first-high-grade-bond-offering-since-2021

Nvidia is issuing bonds, in a move not seen since 2021. Do any of you have theories on why? Ostensibly, they're swimming in revenue. To my amateur eyes, I can only think of two things that make sense:

  1. They're spending so much that they're actually constrained on cash flow for some expensive project that they'd like to start.
  2. They expect inflation to get a lot worse and want to lock in some debt before it happens.

Am I missing any other alternatives?

I’ve not analyzed NVIDIA stock but I did Netflix some years back and found looking at their statements that they’d been issuing debt, burning through massive amounts of cash for years to fund their content. A NFLX subscription should cost anywhere between 2x-4x at their current subscriber rate just to break even. Wouldn’t surprise me if NVIDIA was in the position of #1.

I got allocated 12 shares of SPCX at its IPO price of $135. How is participating in an IPO not a total cheat code? It seems like the likelihood of profit when buying at the IPO price is quite high. I googled for counterexamples and only got discussion of Facebook and Uber.

I should calm down though. I only got 12 of the requested 100. Retail participation is usually quite low for offerings.

I don't want to flip these immediately and cause my broker to deprioritize me in future IPOs (Anthropic later this year maybe). After 30 days, how long would you hang onto these shares if you were I? Do you own any SPCX yourself?

Companies can flop just like anything else - an IPO can go miserably. UBER fell down right away and took months to recover. That said, it was obvious this one was going to go crazy because Elon and Space and Such. I got no allocation, but I bought a few early on and just hit my exit target for a nice and tidy little profit. If you can 'read the room' an IPO is a pretty great cheat, but there's always the chance you're wrong and it fails.

I got allocated 1/100 requested (probably due to me getting my request in late) but picked up the rest shortly after open. I wouldn't normally do that but (1) I'm a space enthusiast so I am bullish on space and just like owning it (2) I'm bullish on SpaceX specifically, who underdelivers in the short term but overdelivers long term, and (3) I don't have any other significant AI plays at the moment, so this covers that base as well. I may end up using the 100 shares for covered calls, haven't decided yet.

I'd look at the lockout periods for shareholders and see if you can get out right beforehand. Increasing the number of shares tends to drive the price down some.

This in general is the art of IPO trading. But you do get in a game of musical chairs where everyone else playing low float games is trying to sell before the others sell.

This one is weirder because the high amount of retail size and the faster lockout periods with some accelerating if the price is up X%. Which is quite honestly a great adjustment to the ipo process. Too many small float games were played last decade.

How do you balance FIRE with not wanting to be a miserable tightwad? Most specifically interested in if anyone has thoughts on that in context of marriage + children + income gap (let's say 4 me:1 her). A particular potential (pun intended) Mrs. Lagrangian likes travel and activities more than I do and I have trouble thinking about that, especially in context of the income asymmetry.

I'm another non-miserable tightwad. Most things worth doing are worth doing for less than $5k. That includes travel and countless activities. Diminishing returns, ect.

With a romantic partner, I'd figure out if she actually likes to travel or if she likes to take Instagram selfies in infinity pools. Because flying somewhere interesting and spending two weeks at carefully chosen Airbnbs shouldn't really set back your FIRE time line all that much, at least not if you do it "only" twice a year.

Same with "activities". Even skiing can be done on many days with top tier equipment for $5k - unless she likes telling people about the awesome ski-in ski-out hotel.

There are, of course, things not worth doing for less than $5k. Check if she has aspirations only possible with access to your money. Polo, general aviation, yachting, motor sport, ...

I've achieved FIRE with kids due to hitting startup lottery and relocating to a mid COL country. Geographic arbitrage is a huge part of making it work realistically

I am just a non-miserable tightwad. There's very little that costs money that I want and yet do not have. Most of my big spending is A) The house, and B) Nice groceries (Which is just not that large).

For a single person, it's really not complicated. You identify what you care about, and what those things cost, and compare the cost benefit of them being part of your life vs the additional years you need to work to afford those drinks/that boat/the next step up the housing ladder.

Where it gets complicated is when your working partner comes into it. Ultimately, you really need to understand your wife here. Does she support you retiring early? If yes, does she actually, or will she get resentful about it? Will it make a difference if you're pursuing a hobby seriously or taking care of the kids rather than getting high and playing games all day? Does she expect you to support the family entirely when kids come into the picture? If so, is that gonna be just while she's on maternity leave, or is there an unspoken expectation that she'll transition to full time caregiver while you win bread? You really need a firm understanding of how she feels about your money vs our money vs her money, and how much she enjoys work, if you're even gonna consider stepping away.

I am married, semi-fired, and expecting kids in the next few years, so I've got some experience here. My wife is very much uncommonly devoted to separate finances and does not feel entitled to my money. The flip side of this, is despite being unemployed, I do still pay more than 50% of the household expenses. Additionally, we are both naturally quite frugal, so there's few 50-50 travel expenses that I'd balk at. It helps that her limiting factor on travel is available days off, while mine is money, so there's not a lot of pressure to go on more trips. On top of that, I do a lot of household labor, and expect to be primary caregiver a sizable part of the time when kids get added to the picture.

In your case, with the massive income disparity, and your wife enjoying spending more than you, I'd just add half a million to your fire number (Unless it's already so large you'd be able to afford her quitting and traveling as much as you want). It's just gonna make sense for you to do more earning for the family with your large earning capacity.

Ideally, I imagine you and your (to be) wife have to be on the same page in terms of goals. And if you're so entirely off base from each other, it's probably not a good idea to get entangled legally with that person. If you're a hermit that wants to live in spartan conditions, while your wife longs for instagrammable lifestyle, it was never bound to work. But if you're a stingy nerd that has a wardrobe of 5 identical t shirts and doesn't like leaving the house, while your wife prefers a hike on the weekends and 2 international trips a year, it would definitely be possible to find middle ground (because her expectations are pretty reasonable and you can definitely afford it). And for the income gap, how do you plan to divide up your finances once married if that's such a concern for you? I'm not married myself, but I know some couples with disproportionate income gaps and the usual set up is that her money is her money and your money is collective money. And it makes sense when one person is making $700k and the other is making $40k. Your income gap wouldn't be as dramatic, but I imagine this informal arrangement would still hold up in some form - expect to pay more for things, even for stuff you wouldn't buy yourself if you were on your own.

If you're getting married and it's causing you to ask this question, you can forget about FIRE dude. Sorry. There are women out there who are the kind of savers who would be amenable to that lifestyle, but it's not likely you got one.

Turns out my wife likes saving money for the things it can buy. I like saving money so the pile can eventually get big enough to earn its own money. I could say that her financial goals are short-sighted, but I think the truth is I'm a homebody who doesn't need anything but an internet connection to be content. My goals to her seem intangible and optimistic. We have to manage around those differences.

How do you balance FIRE with not wanting to be a miserable tightwad? Most specifically interested in if anyone has thoughts on that in context of marriage + children + income gap (let's say 4 me:1 her). A particular potential (pun intended) Mrs. Lagrangian likes travel and activities more than I do and I have trouble thinking about that, especially in context of the income asymmetry.

Yeah, everyone likes travelling on someone else's dime.

I donno man, I was gonna regurgitate my life story because it's late and I'm a few in, but instead I'll leave at this. If you plan on having kids with this woman, you can basically forget everything. And honestly, kids are way better than FIRE.

I had aspirations to FIRE once. Now I can't imagine a more lonely and desolate existence if it costs me my kids who absolutely make that impossible.

My plan is to aim for 85% of my income. In an "expensive" year, I usually spend about 50%, so it seems like a decent aim. If I don't use it all, I'll leave it to my partner.

wdym aim for 85%? Live on 85% of your income? and for that matter "leave it to my partner"?

I'll probably retire when I can manage a consistent inflation-adjusted constant annual withdrawal rate that's equal to 85% of my income.

As for leave it to my partner - she's probably going to outlive me, so I'm trying to make sure I have enough for her to be taken care of if something happens.

all our money

my husband could have covered the art and I could have covered the music

These seem in contradiction to me. How can you consider separately whether to cover things if it's all "your" [combined] money?

Why are you thinking about income asymmetry?

It's hard not to at a FAANG vs good-for-not-being-FAANG ratio. Less glibly, because when I consider the tradeoff of being single, or at least not married, vs a marriage in which I have less control over spending, and much more to spend it on (square footage, children, travel), it is a hard sell. I feel a strong need to be in as much control as possible of how much/why the FIRE timeline slips. More control, easier sell. Five years easily, more likely ten, especially if the goal is to be so FI as to remain that way in the event of divorce.

Do you keep separate finances?

Largely a hypothetical consideration. There's a candidate in mind, but it's early. I'd certainly want to, and a strong prenup to boot.

These seem in contradiction to me. How can you consider separately whether to cover things if it's all "your" [combined] money?

I meant in terms of skills. We didn't need to pay for classes. We already had the knowledge in-house.

in the event of divorce.

This says to me there are other things going on.

In terms of money, most of our retirement and investments are from "my" money/efforts. (I say this because we could have had a lot more money if he hadn't spent as much as he did.) Yet, it was his retirement we were planning. If I had been planning for a divorce no way could we (I) have made these choices. I don't think I would have been willing to pay for the retirement of someone I might divorce. But I would happily do it for someone I loved.

I'd be concerned about the travel example. What are your plans for when you retire? If you're planning to travel then, why not front load some of those costs rather than saving enough money to do it all later? If you're not planning to travel, marrying someone who wants to might be a sticking point.

You are supposed to pick a standard of living and develop your long-term budget accordingly. The subreddit's standard terms are "leanFIRE" for being a "miserable tightwad" and "fatFIRE" or "chubbyFIRE" for living large.

chubbyFIRE then I suppose, maybe flirting with FAT. HCOL. I think 3M would maintain my current life, 5M with kids, 7M with kids + buffer to pay for a divorce.

This still doesn't answer how to navigate the "how chubby" question with a partner. It's not like we haven't talked about it, it's just hard to really get more than vibes, hypotheticals, rough spreadsheet budgets.

Don't just think, run the numbers. Trying to plan on vibes would make me itchy. Forecasting out your current budget and adding health insurance costs and your other known early retirement expenses would give you good numbers to work with. Talking about exactly how many years of work are needed to pay for exactly what kind of lifestyle is really helpful.

Your partner may agree that 10 more years of work to pay for a country club membership every year isn't a good trade off. You may agree that 5 more years of work for a yearly trip to do a walking tour in Ireland is a good trade off.

In the US, the Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts the Consumer Expenditure Survey, which can be used as the framework for a very detailed budget. For example, the table "Cross-tabulated—Size of consumer unit by income before taxes—Two people—2023–2024" provides the following numbers, broken down into dozens of categories and subcategories.

Annual income range (k$)Average annual income (k$)Average annual expenses (k$)
(−∞, ∞)10981
(−∞, 15)740
[15, 30)2342
[30, 40)3548
[40, 50)4552
[50, 70)6064
[70, 100)8473
[100, 150)12288
[150, ∞)267142

Additionally, the IRS and the DOJ collaborate on estimating the cost of housing and utilities across the country on a county-by-county basis.

Interesting, but not super useful for me specifically. HCOL + want excellent schools + FAANG puts me well outside those buckets.

Can someone more knowledgeable than I am explain what the purpose of an annuity is? They seem like a fixed income investment bound together with a life insurance policy. Is that the whole point? Am I missing something that makes them more attractive than that?

I've always thought of it as using a lump sum to buy yourself a pension (or a larger pension if you already have one), but that could be in error.

Reo is partially right, but definitely needs some clarification:

Term Life insurance:

  • Is generally cheap (think more $300 a year, not $1000) but gets more expensive as the policy approaches EoL.
  • Is for covering unexpected premature death, but that's about it (basically get an amount that would cover your mortgage)
  • 97% of the time expires without use

Whole Life + whole life variants

  • More 'costly' in that a policy will be a more expensive monthly premium for less coverage
  • Is permanent, meaning that it will pay the death benefit to your family upon end of your life
  • Usually has a number of different riders and additions to be tailored to your needs
  • Turns into an 'owned' asset which you can take out loans against
  • There's a number of tax things as well

Annuity:

  • Is an insurance for when you're alive
  • Generally appreciates in value over time at a fixed rate and usually pays a guaranteed monthly payment starting at a certain period in your life.
  • Money added to the annuity grows tax deferred until annuitization (the time when annuities pay out a fixed income)
  • Can be tied to the market in various ways
  • While it can be used as an inheritance vehicle, if you die during annuitization, the insurance company usually keeps the leftovers (this is an incredible oversimplification. there's a lot of different ways an annuity can be structured which change the payout structure).
  • usually has a lot of fees, so be very careful about the annuity (though there is something called a 1035 exchange which allows you to replace an annuity to one that is a better offering).

They are a means to have fixed income for you. And they are (usually) issued by life insurance companies.

Normal Term Life Insurance:

  1. at age 30, you pick a term life insurance to safeguard your family.
  2. You pay $1000 (called premium) to the insurance company every year and depending upon the risk of you dying, the company assesses its risk, and is ready to pay your family in case of your death, a sum assured amount like say $1 million.
  3. if you don't die in year 1, you pay $1000 next year (as premium) to continue having this benefit for your family.
  4. You do this for the term of your insurance policy. Say 30 years.

Normal Fixed Annuity:

  1. At age 60, you look at your portfolio and say that you need some kind of income throughout the rest of your life.
  2. You go back to the life insurance company, and pay it $1 million and the company says, okay now you got an income stream which we will pay throughout your life period. There are multiple options in an annuity and based upon the parameters, the company will pay higher or lower amount.
  3. If you don't have anyone around you, so you say to the company, I just want an income for my life, after that keep the amount with you. Depending upon how long the company thinks you may live, it can offer $60,000 a year all your life.
  4. If you have a kid(s) or some nephew/niece for whom you want to leave that $1M, you tell the company, I want an income stream while I live, then you give back that $1M to my nephew XYZ. So, they will reduce the amount to give to you, and will pay out say $30,000.
  5. Then there are variable annuities, inflation step up annuities, joint life annuity, joint life annuity with Principal back, etc.

So it's a bet between you and the insurance agency that you're going to live longer than they think you will?

You can say that. They are taking the bet, so they indeed think that they will make money in this. While you are shifting the risk of running out of money during your lifetime to them. Both sides get something out of the transaction.

A good insurance agency shouldn't force you to make the distinction. You should get a guaranteed income in retirement with a fixed tax deferred growth for a set amount of time. There are many ways to structure an annuity that should prevent the "betting" angle of a fixed annuity. Generally, if the annuity runs out of money the annuity won't provide income beyond the principal+fixed growth of the annuity.

It can also be a tool for people who are bad with money. One of my plans was to buy an annuity that would cover taxes/utilities just in case I predeceased my husband. Sometimes his ADHD would be his worst enemy so it would have made me feel better to know he would have some basics taken care of without needing to think about them. (Generally annuities aren't a good bet, imo.)

A pretty loaded bet, I think, they charge a big premium. It makes people feel safer though.

It's kind of the opposite of life insurance, really. The point of an annuity is that you can't outlive it, so you purchase annuities as a hedge against living longer than you anticipate, where life insurance is a hedge (you erect for others) against dying sooner than you anticipate. I think many annuities also have death benefits associated but I assume that is to mitigate unjust windfalls to the brokers.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats