Clearly, she should be appointed to the Supreme Court. What debt collector would find it worthwhile to collect $10,000 or so in exchange for antagonizing 1/9 of the highest court in the land? Problem solved.

Wow. Noone takes the federal bench for the pay, but . . . her net worth is basically $0.

After confirmation (hopefully), first order of business is to write that best-selling, very inspiring memoir, Judge Sotomayor.

I'm with #2

Non-story.

What is the point of saving when a federal judge gets full pay for life after a certain number of years on the bench? No need to build a retirement nest egg. Live it up!

Is she still paying off her law school loans? I know I would be.
Maybe she sends much of her salary back to Puerto Rico to feed her impoverished relatives.

Fail. This is a stupid post.

I wonder if she owes back taxes to the IRS. That seems to be a requirement to be appointed by Obama.

Her salary as a CCA judge probably isnt much higher than the first years and summers who cant afford to live in new york either.

She must have a gambling problem.
Judge ‘hard case’ Hardcastle of Hardcastle and McCormick had a rather palatial estate on the California coast, along with many other trappings of the wealthy, and he was only a state court justice.

Co-sign 2. A spoonful of sugar...

She's broke because she's spent all her money on racial supremacist publications.

It's expensive to fight whitey.

MUST have a tax problem based on Obama's having selected her.

wow, good to know that I am richer than someone 10 times smarter than me...

3, you are an idiot. She has ~$620k in home equity. The other credits and liabilities cancel out. Net worth is probably in the range of $700k (at least) when you throw in car(s) and other possessions. Plus obviously the life penchant and other government benefits. Significantly higher net worth than any law firm associate (though obviously not partner) that I know.

"I refuse to carry money with pictures of the white man!"

-- SotomayOR!

^^^^^^^

Sorry, forgot to subtract out the mortgage. Call it $300k net worth. Still better than most Americans. Far from Broke.

$15,000 in credit card debt????

No, 18, you were right the first time. The $620k is the $1M value minus the $380k mortgage. Net worth is ~$700k.

Can anyone locate a picture of Sotomayor and a white person in the same frame? I can't. I think she makes an effort to stay away from white people.

Having no one to support on a $179K salary is a defense to not having saved?

Looks like the credit card regulations will stand and even the anti-dentites will have their day....

Cut her some slack; all the white guys on our currency look the same to her.

"you are an idiot"

"Plus obviously the life penchant "

Guaranteed she has supported some of her family members. By the way, this is how somebody's portfolio looks who has been a civil servant for much of her career, comes from no money, and is single.

judges dont have to save, basically the perfect economic citizen

they basically have their salary, and guaranteed pension.

And unlike normal people that pension isnt going to go poof, and if it does, just about everyone else is fucked too so who cares.

Although i would advise her to pay off that CC debt with the cash on hand.

Dental bill - even government insurance sucks when it comes to dental. A root canal and some other oral surgery can add up real quick.

Would this bigot have the decency to decline her nomination already, before she is rejected by the Senate.

That credit card bill may not reflect a carried-over balance. As to the dental thing, I agree with 26. A dental problem can really, really run you.

I don't get it. As 16 & 20 point out, she's got over $600k in investment savings. It happens to be in the form of home equity rather than stocks/bonds/cash instruments. It's still savings. And quite substantial.

PE,

How does this measure up to your portfolio?

This story sheds light on why I passed on a judicial appointment years ago. A judge's salary is too paltry for my taste. Judges do not have access to the country clubs I belong to because the deposit and admission fees often exceed one half of their annual salary. Ms. Sotomayor seems to be living beyond her means, which reflects poorly on her fiscal decisionmaking and overall judgment. She can be a supreme and wear the robe all she wants but the bottom line is I am living more comfortably than she can ever dream of.

She doesn't need stocks and bonds, because she has the sweetest deal in town...federal retirement, which for her is full salary for life after 15 years on the bench and attaining the age of 55. She also has a virtually unlimited expense account, so long as the expenses are arguably related to work. She has all health care paid. She has servants (law clerks, court clerks, and US Marshalls) to wait on her hand and foot while she's at work. Not bad, but not much when compared to partners in BigLaw or MidLaw. On the other hand, there is nobody quite as powerful as a federal judge, so beware.

How is a net worth of approximately $700k on a government salary evidence of financial recklessness? Does anyone want to defend his/her position on that?

Listen, if sotomayor needs some money she can definitely do some housekeeping for me...

AND, before you all jump on me and start calling me a RACIST, let me just say that I would spend the whole time that she is working for me asking her opinion about significant cases, career advice and Princeton eating clubs.

so she basically has $2000 in liquid assets. and if she were to suddenly come into a cash crunch, like if her cats needed some vet care, she'd be looking to liquidate her house or use a home equity line in this market. that's pretty bad.

Her lack of liquidity is part of the rich life experiences and struggles that make her more qualified than a white man to be a judge.

I have a friend who lives very close to her in Manhattan (but I'm reticent to say exactly where--I don't know if it's public). It's a neat area, but you know how everything in NYC is super expensive relative to what you get. The million dollar apartment sounds like a lot if you're outside of NYC--but for where she lives, that's just nice and actually fairly humble. No shame in any of it--rather, I'd call it dignified austerity. I had to have a bunch of expensive dental work done myself due to an accident I had as a child. Having it done in NYC... forgetaboutit.

Now I'm personally a bit critical of her for several First Amendment decisions, but her finances are nothing to criticize.

35, I think it's safe to assume she'll be "liquidating" her house when she moves to DC this fall. At which point she'll have over $600k in cash.

She ugly, and who wants an ugly woman on the Supreme Court.

She's got a good salary, and hasn't saved anything. Pretty sad financial picture considering she has no children to support -- where did all her money go?

She got lucky her house has appreciated, but in case you haven't noticed, housing is still heading into the toilet -- at this rate she could be underwater a year from now.

well, you know, dentists in NYC are expensive. Went to one last year for the first time, guy by the name of Michael Hermann, first thing he did was say I needed a root canal (which cost an arm, a leg and a tooth).

After the procedure, I found out he recommends a root canal to a quite a few of his patients...

Under $200k is not a "good salary" in Manhattan.

well, you know, dentists in NYC are expensive. Went to one last year for the first time, guy by the name of Michael Hermann, first thing he did was say I needed a root canal (which cost an arm, a leg and a tooth).

After the procedure, I found out he recommends a root canal to a quite a few of his patients...

well, you know, dentists in NYC are expensive. Went to one last year for the first time, guy by the name of Michael Hermann, first thing he did was say I needed a root canal (which cost an arm, a leg and a tooth).

After the procedure, I found out he recommends a root canal to a quite a few of his patients...

Barack Obama was still paying off his law school loans almost 20 years after law school, when both he and his wife had ~$200k salaries for years. Why should it be surprising that he is nominating someone with a similar lack of savings ethics?

FWIW, net worth is generally calculated exclusive of any equity in your primary residence

I assume she did not put in 600k in home equity. She probably bought the home for about 500k, and has experienced the same dramatic increase in home equity that many others have in the NY area (but if she tried to sell right now, she will likely have the same luck as our current Treasury Secretary, who still cannot unload his newly bought house in Larchmont)

Refutation of Mankiw:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/05/most-unfair-attack-on-sonia-sotomayor-contest-entry-greg-mankiw.html

45, depending on interest rates on your loans, it is usually the far wiser financial decision to pay them off as slowly as possible. Mine, for instance, are at 2.125% and 2.4%. The rate of inflation is typically at least that. We're going through a deflationary period now but I've also gotten 20% returns on my stock portfolio over the last 3 months (more than making up what I lost previously (by more than that 2% and change).

Mortgage rates are also much higher than my student loans. So if I want to buy a house I'd be stupid to pay down 2% loans because it just means that much less for a down payment and that much more of a 5-6% mortgage loan.

It's shocking how financially stupid the law students on here are.

45 - you do understand the concept of leverage? I consolidated my student loans and would never pay them off in full unless I suddenly became rich. why you ask? well it simply doesnt make sense considering the ridiculously low interest rate on the loans. My money is better invested.

Her net worth is not $0.

$1 million (value of home) - $381,775 mortgage = $618,225.

That's a pretty nice nest egg.

46, that makes no sense. Your position is really that she currently has a net worth of $0 but could have a net worth of $620k tomorrow if she sold and started renting?

48 - that link is retarded, as are you for posting it.

49/50, nice theory, except the Obamas did not have such financial arbitrage in mind, as they had to repeatedly take out home equity loans to cover the fact that they're spending more than their triple-digit income.

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/was-obama-subprime-borrower_11.html

Or maybe they also took out the home equity loans to make investments with superior returns, and those investments were never disclosed on the financial reporting forms?

It's shockingly how stupid and presumptuous the law students on here are.

If you consider the equity in her home, other assets (such as car), health and retirement benefits, and projected earnings over even just a year or two, she's basically a millionaire. That's not rich?

I have the projected net worth of a chili cheese dog and tots.

52 -- All I'm saying is that this is the way an individual's net worth is normally calculated. Certainly, from a pure accounting standpoint, the home equity should be included. But since you don't expect someone to sell their primary residence and move to a rental, people who calculate net worth for business reasons (making loans etc.) don't include home equity. (Plus she would lose a significant chunk of that equity to taxes if she sold and started renting.)

46

49 here (actually not the same as 50, just reacting simultaneously to the idiocy of 45).

While I recognize that 45 put his/her statement in the context of a right-wing talking point about the Obamas, the general sentiment/wrong financial approach expressed there (and often expressed by law students on this blog) was that the prudent ("ethical," even) financial approach is to maximally devote income to paying of low-rate loans. As 50 and I responded, this is usually wrong. If we were talking about 9% interest rates that might be another story (depending, of course, on the rate of inflation).

BTW, allocating financial resources so as to maximize profit is just prudent investing, it's not some kind of unseemly "arbitrage."

^^^
That (58) was for you, 54.

58, since you can't seem to understand the difference between financial prudence in purposely not paying off the loans to invest the money elsewhere, and excess consumption causing you to not be able to pay off the loans, let me rephrase my 45 post.

Barack Obama had little capacity to spend less than he earned, as shown by the fact that he had to repeatedly take out hundreds of thousands of dollars of home equity lines of credit, when both he and his wife had ~$200k salaries for years yet reported minimal income from savings. Why should it be surprising that he is nominating someone with a similar lack of savings ethics?

More importantly, Government Judges do not have to report their Thift Savings Plan (401K) contributions and savings. (as Mankiw eventually noted)

Thus we have no evidence to say that she hasnt saved. In fact, given the fact that she has no record of any exposure to the stock market, I would be shocked if she didnt have TSP donations - and perhaps quite sizeable ones.

I'm not talking about Barack Obama, 45/60. You are. You can conveniently pretend that your post at 45 was not expressing any kind of more generally applicable advice about paying of student loans but it's not credible.

58

God 62 you must be retarded. 45 was taking about Barack "zero savings" Obama and giving an example of his lack of savings ability, which he followed by another example, not making general advice about how to pay off student loans.

63 = 60 = 54 = 45.

Keep cheerleading yourself.

63, on the off-chance you're really this dense and not just being ridiculously disingenuous, I'll spell it out for you. Your post at 45 was nominally about the Obamas. Other than mentioning his name though, the only facts you gave were (a) that he and his wife made over $200k for years and (b) took nearly 20 years to pay down student loans. You then expressed moral contempt that people making this much money would take "so long" to pay down their loans. There was zero mention of anything having to do with the Obamas' particular finances that would differentiate them from any other law firm associate couple pulling in $400k a year and (wisely) taking their sweet time to pay down loans.

Only after you were schooled on how poorly thought out and wrong (not to mention weirdly moralistic) this was did you come back with non sequiturs and post hoc excuses that you had really been assuming that the conversation was specifically about the Obamas and all of the (probably wrong) information you later found on some right wing nutso's blog.

21--
You are a bona fide racist. May something horrible happen to you.

Ouch!

63 = PWN'd

54: "It's shockingly how stupid and presumptuous the law students on here are."

It's "shockingly" how often people fuck up when trying to point out the stupidity of others.

It's funny. When I graduated HLS, the financial aid "exit interview" program included a presentation where they quickly ran the numbers and demonstrated clearly that the financially prudent approach is to pick the longest pay-off plan possible. I guess they don't give that presentation at Regent University law school.

69, at Regent we were advised that the moral course is to pay off law school loans in 3 years. Anything longer is sinning.

Michele Obama's penis disapproves of this message.

$15 grand worth of grillz.

Judge Sotomayor has a sizable net worth, as has been pointed above. She doesn't need a lot of cash or cash equivalents, because she can't get fired. (I'm sure her disability is covered by excellent insurance.) What is the point of the original post?

49,

You played part of the game with respect to at least thinking beyond just either paying off the loans with respect to inflation but you forgot a key element. Student loan interest is phased out at somewhat low levels of income. I think 100K for a single person.

So once you get phased out of the deduction you need to reevaluate your analysis with respect to paying them off or saving for a mortgage or investing. If you started paying them back in 1998 (and your consolidation rate would be much higher than 2.5% or so) than it would have made more sense to pay the loans off because if you invested money in 1998, barring dividend returns, you would have made exactly 0 dollars.

Sometimes making the financial prudent decision verses taking out leverage pays off in the long run i.e. the bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush.

As for the Obama's, they were clearly financially irresponsible prior to BO being a Senator. they were living above their means by using their house as an ATM (which they now use as a talking point in their lectures to the average joe). On top of the fact they didn't pay off their loans, they never heavily invested anything financially like majority of African-Americans- in either the stock market or bonds. So, I find his remarks on the capital markets, stock market etc so of naive because it lacks any real world knowledge that one finds in someone that has essentially lived his live off the public dole.

74: "they never heavily invested anything financially like majority of African-Americans- in either the stock market or bonds."

Seriously? Jesus. The racists are out in full today.

He's the fucking President of the United States. He was the President of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna from HLS. He has an undergraduate degree from Columbia. He's overachieved anything you'll do in your paper-pushing life a million times over. But he can't behave financially responsibly (funny, last I heard he had a net worth of well over $10M) because really, at core, he's just another financially ign'ant darkie?

Clarence Thomas had student loans when he was joining the court. He and he wife worked to pay them off before he took his seat because they thought it looked bad that he still had debts.

There are currently seventy-six (76) comments on this page.

I just pressed conrol + F and entered the word "refreshing" and retrieved nothing.

My profession is dead.

41/43/44 - Michael Hermann is also my dentist. I've been going to him for 5 years. He has never told me I needed a root canal. In fact, he tells me that I have awesome teeth every 6 months. Perhaps you and your friends have shitty teeth?

I'm surprised at all the commentary fetishizing saving. Saving is not an end in and of itself, it is only done for some other purpose. Why would Sotomayor need to save? Kids' College? Nope. Retirement? Nope.

Life is for living, not for amassing a bank account.

I too wonder where the liquid assets have gone. As mentioned earlier, $600k in home equity in NYC is not so much, and almost undoubtedly came form real estate appreciation. A $1M apartment in Manhattan is a nice 1-bedroom of about 1000 sf (can't even fit a Texas wife in it, and no place to park a Lexis!) or a very cramped 2-bedroom. Liquid assets are canceled out by the non-mortgage debt. So, she appears to be spending all of her income to the point where she's not able to pay off her debts.

SUre, that's a choice and she does have job security and all, but it does smack of poor financial management, excessive spending, or another factor. (For example, supporting family members would be an 'acceptable' reason for this otherwise poor financial picture.) But such a lack of savings (and benefiting from NYC's real estate appreciation doesn't count as 'savings' at all) does raise some flags in my book.

75=self-righteous racist

KIds in my high school dropped 15 large on dentist bills all the time, it was no big deal

49/50:

This is the real story about how current law school grads are screwed. When we were entering law school, it was as you say--people could graduate and consolidate at 2.5% interest rates.

Now, all of our stafford loans are at a fixed 6.8% and lenders don't offer fixed-rate private consolidation loans.

Not to mention you all had jobs awaiting you....

81, get your head out of Rush Limbaugh's ass. Your comment doesn't even make sense.

I mean, that kind of sucks 83, but law firms also started first years at $125k when I finished law school. That extra $35k a year more than pays for the higher monthly loan payments resulting from a higher loan rate. But I agree it becomes a tougher call at 6.8%. Probably a bad bet to try and beat that in the current market (though you would have killed it over the past few months). I'd probably prioritize paying those down quickly. Higher than mortgage rates, after all.

Job prospects are kind of another story, though. Hopefully you're at a top 5 school. It's worth the extra loan debt. Plus I know HLS will basically pay 100% of your loans if/for any period that you take a sufficiently low-paying public interest job.

84=Sotomayor

86=racist.

Am I doing it right now?

79: A lot (not all) of the self-proclaimed "savers" I know had the luxury of putting every dime they ever made in their pocket, not to loans, not to another family member, and not to regular everyday debts that the vast majority of Americans have to worry about. You know - those people who bought real estate at 25 because of their "savings" (yeah, right). Also, do we know how much money she's given to charity over the course of her career?

Over the course of her career, she was in private practice for just eight years. Most of her career was either as a prosecutor or as a judge. While she was an ADA, her student loans probably just sat there. Federal judges do fine, I suppose, but weren't they all bitching recently about their salaries and didn't some of them even go back into private practice? The salary is comfortable, not rich, and Soto's assets show comfort, but not wealth.

79: A lot (not all) of the self-proclaimed "savers" I know had the luxury of putting every dime they ever made in their pocket, not to loans, not to another family member, and not to regular everyday debts that the vast majority of Americans have to worry about. You know - those people who bought real estate at 25 because of their "savings" (yeah, right). Also, do we know how much money she's given to charity over the course of her career?

Over the course of her career, she was in private practice for just eight years. Most of her career was either as a prosecutor or as a judge. While she was an ADA, her student loans probably just sat there. Federal judges do fine, I suppose, but weren't they all bitching recently about their salaries and didn't some of them even go back into private practice? The salary is comfortable, not rich, and Soto's assets show comfort, but not wealth.

79: A lot (not all) of the self-proclaimed "savers" I know had the luxury of putting every dime they ever made in their pocket, not to loans, not to another family member, and not to regular everyday debts that the vast majority of Americans have to worry about. You know - those people who bought real estate at 25 because of their "savings" (yeah, right). Also, do we know how much money she's given to charity over the course of her career?

Over the course of her career, she was in private practice for just eight years. Most of her career was either as a prosecutor or as a judge. While she was an ADA, her student loans probably just sat there. Federal judges do fine, I suppose, but weren't they all bitching recently about their salaries and didn't some of them even go back into private practice? The salary is comfortable, not rich, and Soto's assets show comfort, but not wealth.

80 - it's "Lexus" not "Lexis"

Her assets substantially exceed her liabilities, and her cash on hand exceeds her short-term dental and credit-card liabilities (albeit not by much). So what's the problem? I can understand why a prospective justice's finances are news generally, but of all the things about her ATL could cover, it picks unimportant stuff like this?!

91---don't be an idiot.

God, I'm sure you are all "brilliant" lawyers or law students, but some of you really are financially retarded.

49 and 50 are right of course - if you don't agree with them you simply don't understand how interest works. You should have your mommy continue to manage your finances until you get it.

Also, all those trumpeting her home equity should recall the fact that the recession we are in right now is based, in part, on faulty assumptions about home values. Who really knows that her apartment is worth 1M? Was this from a full appraisal and if so when was this appraisal done? Or, perhaps this value is from a very old appraisal or some bogus flawed drive-thru appraisal program like Zillow's, or just simply the Judge's own guess. In this market, most banks are only lending based on full and complete appraisals no more than 30-60 days old. What if her place is in bad shape and only worth $500K? All of this is really neither here nor there, but I just use it as an example of how people even in 2009 like to throw around an inflated concept of "home equity" circa 2006.

Finally, Obama is a "subprime" borrower? Really? Check some definitions first buddy before you make such idiotic statements that reveal your ignorance....

I guess opinions about finance are like assholes - everyone has one - but it amazes me how so many supposedly "smart" people like the trolls on this blog are so ignorant about this, but like with everything else they just pretend to know it all and be intellectually superior to all those who have a different view.

And yes, 92, this isn't much of a story - the real story is how many of the a-hole commenters on ATL are financially illiterate

75,

Facts are racist when they are right.

--In 2004, 57% of White households directly and/or indirectly owned stocks, compared to less than 26% of Black households and 19% of Hispanic households.--

http://www.consumerinterests.org/files/public/HannaLindamood_ChangesinStockOwnershipbyRaceHispanicStatus.pdf

Thus, my statement that a majority of african-americans don't invest is an accurate one. Stop being a PC police and actually get out of the law school classroom. You are missing life passing you by.

as for the pay off or not to pay off, 49 and 50 are somewhat right but if you did invest instead of paying off loans you would have lost that gamble over the last 8 years. Further, if you invested or didn't pay off loans from the April to April time frame this year based on inflation you would have lost, too. Add in the fact, most biglaw attorneys can't take the credit deduction you would have further been behind someone that did pay them off.

Distilling all the BS:

1. All the trumpeting of her home equity value is bullsh**. Yeah, it's great that she was able to afford an expensive place and has paid off some of the principal over time, but that has nothing to do with her ability to save or financial responsibility and homes are a notoriously illiquid asset.

2. Her financial situation is secure because of the fact (and only because of the fact) that she has lifetime tenure and a fat government pension (which is yet another reason why you can't compare the salary of federal judges to BigLaw associates, but I digress).

3. Overall, she's no different than the vast majority of Americans, who simply live paycheck to paycheck and spend whatever comes in. Decide for yourselves whether that's a good or a bad thing.

If you were single and childless and had an ironclad safe annuity that paid you a second year associate's salary for the rest of your life, would you save a bunch of money?

I sure as hell wouldn't. Smart woman.

95/74, the racism comes in because you felt the need to reference a completely irrelevant statistic about other African Americans to explain the Obamas' investing/saving habits. You really don't get that?

76:
Funny that Clarence the Idiot was concerned about how having student loans would look. Was he concerned about sexually harassing women would look? Was he concerned about how making bizarre comments about pubic hair and Coke would look? Was he concerned about how being a self-hating racist would look?

Being a judge is not a way to build up a nest egg. Judge Luttig quit the 4th Circuit a few years ago, and it was reported that his decision was in part because he couldn't pay for his kids to go to college.

How come no one has pointed out the obvious yet? She's a lesbian.

101:
Because she isn't.
A. She's been married.
B. Everyone who knows her knows that she basically is asexual now because she is a workaholic.
C. She is not a hypocrtical right-wing nut, and therefore would have no problem disclosing her sexual orientation--unlike countless phony Republicans (See Craig, Haggard, Foley)

To 102: Sotomayor's previous marriage provides solid proof for only one claim: that she once married a man. Lesbians marry men all the time. I'm a gay male, and as far as I can "see," Sotomayor's certainly a lesbian. LOL

Why isn't she out like Kagan? Here's my guess: Her ethnic heritage. White women have it easier.

Why do gay men always assume everyone else is gay?

Some women would like to be married but don't look like the kind of women that men want to marry. Many men won't scratch the surface to see what is beneath. So many posts have focused on her being ugly. That does not make her a lesbian. It makes her someone that might find it harder to meet a man because the MAN cannot' get past her face or body.

For the women, once she is accomplished, she stops NEEDING a man to exist. She might like one, but it is not necessary to put a roof over her head or food in her stomach. The pool of men is also smaller because many men lack the guts to be with a woman that might be more talented or accomplished than they are.

Finally, work can be so consuming that you stop going places where you might meet a person that would be a good match or stop caring about how you look.

She is a complete person by herself. Please stop putting the gay tag on her. All it does is put her in the position of having to say the hurtful statement, I am not gay, I am just plain, talented and busy.

One more thing, her accomplishments mean she does not have to settle. Being married is not the end all/be all. If she cannot find a man that makes her happy, then why bother? Having a man just to have one is not worth all the hassle.