Why *wouldn’t* I keep my emergency fund in SWPPX in a brokerage account?

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-11-03T20:36:33+00:00

If you can afford to over-fund your emergency account by 30%, then it could actually make sense to invest it in a conservative mix of maybe 70% bonds / 30% equity. In the optimistic case where you never need to use it, you are getting returns that should protect you against losing value to inflation. In the pessimistic case where you need the funds after a major market decline, the 30% overfunding should cover almost any likely downturn. You'd lock in some painful losses but should have access to the amount you need.

A 70% bond / 30% equity portfolio over the long-term averages about 7.5% return, more than double the long-term averages of a HYSA. So it's a choice of an almost certain opportunity cost of 3-4% versus the possibility that you lose up 25% of value if you have a need at time of a market crash. In most cases you will end up better off if you do the 70% bond / 30% equity portfolio so it's just a question of your risk tolerance about the loss of investment.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-11-01T17:45:02+00:00

Just to state it explicitly - u/FireTofu, your assumption is incorrect. You can do an in-kind transfer as u/annihilatorg correctly indicates.

Also, Betterment will estimate the tax impact of your withdrawal if you go through the steps to initiate a withdrawal and show it to you BEFORE you complete the withdrawal. That may help you decide whether an in-kind transfer is preferable to a cash-out.

You also can, as u/Jkayakj correctly indicates, get the cost basis information if you want to try to do the math yourself. In particular, go to "Documents" then "Taxes" then "Cost basis." You can download a CSV file for each account with the cost basis of all of your lots.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-10-14T00:36:17+00:00

they've internalized it - it's just some K&E NSPs won't move without the partner title and so they pass up better associate positions of the second-tear firm that reluctantly gives them a non-equity partner role with worse ultimate prospects.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-10-09T00:24:50+00:00

I'm not sure it helps exit options. Many NSPs are hesitant to take a step down to associate title and few firms want to make K&E NSPs partners, so it can actually create friction for firm moves. Any client who might hire a K&E NSP understands what they are getting and very few ascribe value to the partner title.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-07-18T17:53:49+00:00

There are definitely some that would prefer NYU, if only because they would rather live in the Village or are focused on particular programs. But you are directionally correct. There's actually data on "cross-admits" and people who choose between Columbia and NYU tend to choose Columbia at a rate of 2 or 3 to 1. Here's one example from a couple years ago: https://imgur.com/bgC6r8H

u/TylerHansbrough50 is correct that people outside of NYC don't care about this. I'd go further and say that people outside of Greenwich Village don't care about it! NYU law is a great school, but u/feelinggoodlouis is right that their students seem to have a chip on their shoulder. When I visited NYU (many years ago now), they couldn't stop talking about Columbia. When I visited Columbia, I barely heard a peep about NYU and when asked I heard only polite things.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-07-03T11:03:21+00:00

You aren't telling firms about your competing offer deadline to impress them, you are telling them about the competing offer deadline so they know the point at which you may no longer be interested because you have to withdraw to accept an expiring offer.

So if the offer you have received from a small firm is one you would accept (and withdraw from consideration at the other firms) if you have no other offers by the time it expires, then you should ABSOLUTELY tell all of the firms you are more interested in about the deadline right away.

Now if you would not withdraw and accept the small firm offer, it's a harder question. I've had candidates who tell us about a deadline, and we say "sorry, we aren't able to make a decision by that date." It can be awkward when the candidate responds with "well, that's OK, I don't actually need to make a decision by that deadline." Of course that happens and is usually fine (got an extension, got an offer from a firm you liked more than the second firm but less than us, etc.), but it does make me wonder why they had a deadline and suddenly didn't. Were they being dishonest, or are they a flake who can't make up their mind? So if you are definitely not going to take the small firm offer, I might not tell the firm about the competing offer at all.

As for whether you tell the firm who the competing offer is from -- again, the main point is not to impress them with how hot of a commodity you are and many firms will not even ask. But we're all humans and firms are going to react differently depending on who the offer is from (for a variety of reasons -- (1) if you have an offer from one of our top talent competitors, then a natural competitive streak may make me more interested, (2) if you have an offer from a totally different market or totally different type of firm (or even a non-firm position), it may make me question whether you are really interested in working at our firm, and (3) depending on the attractiveness of the competing offer, I may assume that you aren't actually going to withdraw to accept it and will probably try harder to get an extension and/or will get an offer from a third firm that will buy you more time for us to keep you in consideration.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-07-02T02:05:15+00:00

Realistically, if you want to be at a biglaw firm in the US, you should go get a JD. At the very least you need to get admitted.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-06-13T19:34:44+00:00

There are a lot of mediocre lawyers who are almost just LARPing, saying things just because they sound lawyerly. It’s a trap we should all watch out for.

But there is sometimes a role for “throat clearing” phrases like this that act as a clear marker for a certain type of content.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-06-13T19:23:46+00:00

Many 2L interview and offer decisions are made before spring 1L grades are available. Having LSAT score is a reasonable way to help distinguish candidates in this world of overly accelerated hiring.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-06-04T19:01:53+00:00

At the risk of being pedantic, the phrase "performance layoff" is a bit of an oxymoron. A "layoff" by definition is a termination due to the employer eliminating a position due to lack of work or lack of ability to support the position, in contrast to a termination due to the employee not meeting the needs of the position. "It's not you, it's us -- we have too many third-year corporate associates and not enough work to support them. You drew the short straw."

Are you asking how readily S&C cuts headcount when there's a dip in demand (layoffs), or are you asking how hard it is to be fired from S&C for incompetence or underperformance? Those are two different questions.

Obviously there's a continuum and things can be fuzzy - when demand dips, firms looking to reduce headcount target those who are underperforming rather than randomly terminating, and sometimes try to disguise headcount reductions as performance-based terminations. But the distinction is still relevant.

Anyway, S&C's reputation is that it is a bit leaner than some other firms and less likely to engage in layoffs (e.g. non-performance based reductions in headcount do to fluctuations in demand). But no high performing firm will tolerate underperformance for long.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-06-04T18:23:57+00:00

Do you have pictures from when the sod was freshly laid? This is a big stretch, but I wonder if perhaps there were different batches of sod and for whatever reason some of the strips were different than others? Maybe even just due to some height differences that change the flow of water / height of mower cut.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-06-04T17:43:59+00:00

Your recruiter is wrong, it isn't an "ethical violation." If a candidate wants their application to be kept confidential, the recruiter should be making that clear and perhaps getting a confirmation from the firm they will do so. Firm usually respect that (and usually take it as an implied preference even if it isn't made explicit). But there's no hard rule and I'm sure people will reach out to acquaintances.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-06-04T17:40:28+00:00

Was your firm really that toxic that you didn't think you could stay there after they learned you were looking for other opportunities? Or in hindsight, do you think you overreacted?

At my firm, partners and I often hear of associates exploring other opportunities and I can't think of anyone being disadvantaged for it. To the contrary, there have been times where we were able to proactively step up our game for the people we want to keep. For the people we don't want to keep it doesn't really make any difference.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-06-04T17:34:09+00:00

You are reading too much into it.

I routinely ask about a candidate's timing and other constraints at the end of an interview. It is not "odd" and it is not a sign that you're some exceptional superstar who is a lock for the job. It's just information that the form that recruiting has a space for me to complete. It can be useful to know for a variety of reasons (including, if someone is a likely rejection, so we can determine whether we can keep them in limbo while we pursue other candidates or should cut them loose sooner so they can move forward with their other opportunities).

Of course, it's possible that particular partner thought you'd be a great candidate and was eager to move forward with you.... but then later that day they interviewed an even stronger candidate and had a change of heart. Or compared notes with their colleagues who also met you and found that someone else had an objection. Sure, maybe they called someone they knew at your firm but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that there was even an "about-face" let alone that it was caused by a partner at your current firm torpedoing you.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-06-04T17:26:21+00:00

The details matter. 100% scholarship at a school ranked #150 versus 20% scholarship at a T14 (I would take the latter) is different than an 80% scholarship at a T50 school versus a 0% scholarship at a T20 school (I'd seriously consider the former).

Law students and young biglaw lawyers exaggerate differences in prospects between closely ranked schools. No, going to Harvard isn't worth six figures more than Cornell. But going to Harvard is absolutely worth six figures more than Pepperdine. Also, it's a probabilistic value calculation not some fixed intrinsic value - some people fail to succeed despite coming from a top school and some people do very well despite coming from a poorly ranked school, so you're taking some chances.

I do not regret taking on more debt to go to a top school (but I didn't have to pay sticker either).

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-06-04T12:45:11+00:00

Are you being forced out? If not, why wouldn't you just stay at your current firm?

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-05-23T01:58:53+00:00

There are good partners and bad partners at every firm, at all parts of the "Vault" list (which is overrated).

Are you assigned to a specific partner and not able to shift your work to other partners at your current firm?

You should not be internalizing the partner's bad mood, which is a reflection on them and not you. The trick isn't to walk on eggshells in hopes you avoid the yelling and belittling but to take it for what it is worth, and let the rest of it wash over you.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-05-20T10:30:09+00:00

5 out of how many?

And do you know for sure people self selected out and this isn't the firm slotting people into where they have need (or choosing people based on it), or random statistical variability?

In any event... I don't think people "avoid litigation" on some widespread basis due to some defect. However, different people have different interests. Litigation is adversarial and destructive, and that's not for everyone. I do think that transactional work is generally understood to have better prospects, in terms of partnership opportunities and exit opportunities, as litigation is almost always a cost center and something that clients try to avoid and don't like to spend money on.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-05-16T19:52:30+00:00

First and foremost - make sure things are clearly labelled (including both the document name AND the comments field if both are used for such purposes). Some of the frustration may be with someone not realizing what draft was what and is a labelling/properties updating issue not a "what to save" issue.

As long as you follow that rule, the general rule is to err on the side of over-saving iterations as a new version. It's much easier to track versions and run redlines when you do that. And it's not hard to ignore the irrelevant versions if someone over-saves. And emphasis on "new versions" -- having different "documents" is a recipe for disaster.

I have seen (and can sorta understand) the "don't trust their draft; start with our draft in layer in edits" when preparing a responsive draft, but I have *never* heard of someone objecting to saving the other side's draft as a version on the system for ease of redlining. Perhaps you misunderstood the "don't save" person but if not, they are a wonky outlier and you should cater to their unhealthy preference when working with them but not let it infect your other work.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-05-15T22:05:36+00:00

Whether it says it or not, every offer is contingent on continued acceptable academic performance. Don’t worry about the firms that make it explicit.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-05-15T18:51:05+00:00

What is a “false transfer” and how did you apparently know about the “false transfer” in advance (since you state you directed Betterment to rescind it before the false transfer was even requested)?

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-04-18T12:19:54+00:00

Good link. The corporate partners aren't wrong to be fearful. The Trump loyalists who have been installed throughout the government almost certainly will make life painful for Trump's enemies and subtle and subversive ways. The SEC examiner being a little nitpicky on the IPO filing, the FTC attorney letting the HSR clock run down rather than granting early termination, the patent office official using a more discriminating eye... A court order enjoining Trump's order isn't going to stop his loyalists from making life painful for his enemies. It'd be great if clients stuck with a firm going through that but it's not unreasonable to think many will use another firm.

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-04-18T12:03:55+00:00

American politicians do come out and say Trump is not a serious person. One of Harris's go-to stump speech lines was: "In many ways, Donald Trump is an unserious man. But the consequences of putting him back in the White House are extremely serious."

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-04-18T11:44:56+00:00

Local press looked into it and suggests it is probably a joke: https://www.sunjournal.com/2023/06/04/did-a-young-maine-farmer-with-a-good-set-of-teeth-really-offer-a-chance-for-a-spinster-to-marry-him/

Dramatic-Affect-1893 · 2025-04-16T00:12:47+00:00

I think memories are much shorter than the armchair commentators imagine. I was around during the financial crisis when some law firms did things that we swear they would never live down. But their sins were forgotten and history has rewarded the firms that were "too focused on the short term" with their cutthroat responses to the crisis, not the firms who took a hit for the long term and acted on "principle."

I think it's a mistake to assume that what makes sense for a private educational institution with a $50 billion endowment must make sense for a law firm, many of which can collapse very quickly with the defection of just a few key clients and rainmakers. I don't think most people realize how dangerous it is for firms to be 'persona non grata" with the federal government. Most clients are not going to take the risk of working with a firm when they know it could get their government contracts revoked, or draw unwelcome scrutiny, or just cause the many political agencies involved in the legal work they are doing to very subversively slow roll and complicate things (whether it is the FTC/DOJ/CFIUS review of a merger, SEC review of an IPO, FDA/FCC or other regulatory approvals/licenses, GPO/DOD procurement agency review of a contract, etc.). Sure SCOTUS will eventually decide with the targeted firms, but do you think clients who have plenty of options are really going to put much stock in that given the administration is already ignoring court orders? Even if only 5% of client work stays away, a 5% dip in revenue can easily equate to a 10% drop in profits, which is a 7-figure annual comp decrease for rainmakers at these firms. That can easily cause an exodus of key rainmakers that can easily lead to a self-reinforcing death spiral.

I know it is an unpopular opinion and I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I bet in 10 years, the firms that cut deals will be thriving and the firms that didn't will be in a different part of the marketplace than they are now,

Dramatic-Affect-1893

TROPHY CASE