Our financial smarts erode quickly after age 60

100% - - You had me worried, since I am 63 and was over 60 before I retired. :)
 
I'm 63, but still scored 100%.

My age probably helped since a lot of the "stuff" I've been exposed to many years, quite unlike a much younger person.

IMHO, it has more to do with financial literacy rather than age.
 
No erosion here - I answered all 11 questions correctly.
 
Got 100%... but then again I am not yet 60 :dance:


But some of the questions are bad... like the auto loan... the question should have stated 'all else being equal'.... without that, get the one with the lowest interest... OR, pay cash and don't pay interest..
 
100% but wasn't that quiz on "Are you smarter than a 5-year-old"?
 
I'm 62 and got #4 wrong. Since I have no need for another mortgage, I'm good with it.
 
MichaelB said:
No erosion here - I answered all 11 questions correctly.
Click to expand...

:LOL:

I missed #4. Probably because I haven't taken out a mortgage in 20 years, and was never interested in getting the biggest loan amount I could anyway.

Looking at the age profile against results, it looks like the 70-74 group got only slightly worse results than the 25-29 group.
 
Well, that was fun and only 10 questions. My mind didn't wander to far even though I have already entered into my early years of geezerhood. I was a little apprehensive since I am not as knowledable as most on the forum yet managed to score 100%. Even so I am working on simplifying our investments for auto-pilot when the day comes and I am either having flashbacks, living on the other side of the looking glass, or not around to take care of the love of my life.

Cheers!
 
I went back & forth on #4 (this was before I saw others missed it), and got it 'wrong'. Got all others marked correct.

I'm not so sure we are wrong, I think the correct answer is 'it depends'. IIRC, the reason people were taking adj rate mortgages was because the lower initial payment qualified them for a larger loan. The idea was that your income would rise in following years and any higher rate could be handled OK. I'm not saying that was sound reasoning, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it was.

The logic that a fixed rate removes variables and should qualify you for a larger loan makes sense to me. But I just don't think it was working that way. So maybe older people remember this?

-ERD50
 
ERD50 said:
I went back & forth on #4 (this was before I saw others missed it), and got it 'wrong'. Got all others marked correct.

I'm not so sure we are wrong, I think the correct answer is 'it depends'. IIRC, the reason people were taking adj rate mortgages was because the lower initial payment qualified them for a larger loan. The idea was that your income would rise in following years and any higher rate could be handled OK. I'm not saying that was sound reasoning, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it was.

The logic that a fixed rate removes variables and should qualify you for a larger loan makes sense to me. But I just don't think it was working that way. So maybe older people remember this?

-ERD50
Click to expand...
I understood the question as specific to someone with little credit history so lower credit score and higher rate. An adjustable loan allows the borrower to improve the credit score over the first couple of years and convert it to fixed under better terms. This assumes "all other tings beign equal" over the entire 5 years, especially all rates.
 
These have nothing to do with financial acumen, but rather how well you have learned your financial catechism. Most of them are definitely TBD in each historical situation.

Ha
 
ERD50 said:
I went back & forth on #4 (this was before I saw others missed it), and got it 'wrong'. Got all others marked correct.

I'm not so sure we are wrong, I think the correct answer is 'it depends'. IIRC, the reason people were taking adj rate mortgages was because the lower initial payment qualified them for a larger loan. The idea was that your income would rise in following years and any higher rate could be handled OK. I'm not saying that was sound reasoning, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it was.

The logic that a fixed rate removes variables and should qualify you for a larger loan makes sense to me. But I just don't think it was working that way. So maybe older people remember this?

-ERD50
Click to expand...


My thinking is different than Michael's....

Banks are stupid... they only look at 'can you pay this monthly payment'... who cares about 3 or 5 years from now... and 20 years from now nobody here will be around.... if you can't make it then, that is their problem...
 
ERD50 said:
I went back & forth on #4 (this was before I saw others missed it), and got it 'wrong'. Got all others marked correct.

I'm not so sure we are wrong, I think the correct answer is 'it depends'. IIRC, the reason people were taking adj rate mortgages was because the lower initial payment qualified them for a larger loan. The idea was that your income would rise in following years and any higher rate could be handled OK. I'm not saying that was sound reasoning, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it was.

The logic that a fixed rate removes variables and should qualify you for a larger loan makes sense to me. But I just don't think it was working that way. So maybe older people remember this?

-ERD50
Click to expand...
I reread the question and think that the above (my bold) may be the logic behind the "correct" answer. Agree it is confusing - especially for us with age-related declining mental function.
 
Age 60/100%, they should have graded on the curve for the others who did so badly.
 
What questions?
 
No mortgage for many years, but when I did buy a first house decades ago, my 16.5% variable loan allowed me to qualify when prevailing 19% fixed rates would not. It was a scary decision, so seared into my brain. I'm not likely to forget the answer to #4 until I'm really too old to make financial decisions on my own.
 
39-90%. Never can remember the difference between a ROTH and trad. IRA without looking it up.

I have both and invest in each on alternating years...
 
haha said:
These have nothing to do with financial acumen, but rather how well you have learned your financial catechism. Most of them are definitely TBD in each historical situation.

Ha
Click to expand...
+1 I hemmed and hawed on a couple because I could see how different answers could apply depending on perspective. Then I selected the least subtle "correct" answer and ended up with 100%. 63 Y/O - so far so good but I am experiencing CRS syndrome on other topics.
 
Texas Proud said:
Banks are stupid... they only look at 'can you pay this monthly payment'... who cares about 3 or 5 years from now... and 20 years from now nobody here will be around.... if you can't make it then, that is their problem...
Click to expand...
Of the reasons given, this makes the most sense to me. I, also, hesitated over this question (but got 100%).

I guess this is common knowledge, but I think it is remarkable that the over 60s
now represents more than 12% of the population and controls half of all the financial wealth in America, ...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Do any of you cut it really close in easy retirement?
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
8K
Koolau
Koolau
S
Returning to full-time (government) work, mainly to get insurance
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
tryan
tryan
N
Retiring two years earlier than planned
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Koolau
Koolau
T
AA with TIPS for FI
Replies
3
Views
711
GravitySucks
GravitySucks
T
Retired 10 years today!
Replies
18
Views
1K
Koolau
Koolau

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom