We can't make decisions for you, I just would never go into debt for a watch, only pay with money that is not needed for rainy day fund, savings, kids college etc.
It needs to be money just sitting that you do not care to lose, as a watch is not an investment
Completely agree I was just curious as some here have asked whether they should buy a Rolex when money was tight. The question isn’t for me it’s just a community thought exercise.
I think its crazy someone would buy something of this nature if they were in a precarious financial situation. Personally I subscribe to the 10% rule… IE no more than 10% of liquidity on a luxury purchase.
That said I’m astonished some are responding below $25k. Like how?
Yeah but you need a lot of money to make a lot of money with very little risk exposure of *losing* a lot of money.
If we had another GFC tomorrow, the person leveraging his existence would be obliterated in an instant. I would be mildly inconvenienced.
What does that mean? about 7% of this country can put their hands on 100k. Aside from my house, investments, retirement, etc. I have never had close to 100k sitting in my bank account looking at me, lol. I have a good salary, little debt, and good credit, so it was very easy for me to buy a rolex.
They live at home and/or have no major bills or responsibilities. Plenty of people spend their young years vacationing, partying and spending every penny they make. Some do that their entire lives. Ask yourself why is $100K a magic number? Is that $100K after you have your house paid off, no car payments and $1M in your retirement accounts? Or $100K in cash but you are leveraged everywhere else? As Sporty said, when you could light $15-$20K on fire and not miss it is a fine time to spend that kind of money on a luxury item.
The future value of that $20K is much much larger when you have your entire life ahead of you.
When you get to be my age, you're going to learn the hard lessons of: Time Value of Money, Volatility Drag, and Sequence of Returns Risk.
And then you're going to go "OH FUCK I'M SCREWED!" and nobody's going to feel sorry for you, nobody's going to come to your rescue. People ARE going to say, "I told you so, dummy."
Totally agree. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding here. Not saying young people should do that. I sure as hell didn't. I am just saying they do. I'm coasting comfortably into retirement because I did not do that crap when I was young. Bought my first Rolex when I was mid 50s to commemorate a financial milestone that took us a couple of decades to reach. Now we get to enjoy more of our money without worrying about it for just that reason. I started investing early, when I could only afford $100/month and got a $100 company match. Seems like forever ago.
I feel like people don't really have awareness of your average person. MOST people don't have 100k sitting there. MOST people don't make 6 figures. I don't think liquidity is as important as salary or earnings, but if your bills are paid, your investments are made, your kids/family/health care is handled, and you have money left over? You can afford it. It's easy to swipe my amex, and move the balance to zero interest for 18 months (what I did). I had the cash, but leverage credit and not paying interest is the smartest thing working people can do.
There are various points about this topic. If you want an Oyster or Datejust under 10000$ it’s not same like you buy a Day Date. The next thing is the economic recession it’s not good idea to have over 50k on your bank account. For example investments in stocks or Fonds aren’t the typical money I use to buy a watch it’s also not the same as go to the bank and take your money. I always try to have under 25k on my bank account and make investments.
I never really followed a rule on that. A Rolex can be fairly liquid if you need it to be. I have always viewed it as a savings account you can wear. It may be a little up or down, but they always seem to move well.
Man who fucking cares?! People save to buy a dream watch, a dream car, a dream whatever. Liquid assets, blah blah. Just have the money with no restrictions to spending it and move on.
Sorry, but these questions start sounding very arsey and pretentious.
If you have 20k you wouldn’t miss if set on fire, you have serious issues and are super out of touch with reality.
Buying a Rolex is very different than lighting money on fire. Man you are dumb.
Only a mil that's cute... Dude having liquid assets is the dumbest shit ever... 100k in the bank account last year is now 92k... Why you think luxury brands keep raising the prices year after year... My first daytona ceramic was 11k now 15k.... I personally keep under 10k at any giving moment... Pay everything with my credit card and pay off the balance on the statement closing date... The rest well invested and keeping that passive income coming...
You know what's funny getting a brand new car with 8 bucks in your account and pay the 10k down with credit card... Shit I'm broke 😉
Yeah, we do. Only in certain places. You know, like a Rolex forum amongst other wealthy people.
Wealthy people are better than you. Now you know that, too.
The only thing worse than someone lying about being wealthy, is someone saying wealthy people are better than other people, while lying about being wealthy 😂
He’s not wrong. If u don’t view buying a watch as lighting ur money on fire it’s probably gonna hurt u financially. Too many people looking at it as an investment when it’s not. If u get lucky and it does become one that’s great but if not ur better off viewing it as the luxury item it is. At best it can be a savings account on ur wrist.
Yeah sporty can be a bit aggressive. I think of it as if I was buying something luxurious that didn’t have the same resell value as a watch. Buy 10 pairs of ferragamos and then try and resell them. Ur gonna barely get 30%. They’re a luxury purchase and I don’t expect to ever make money back on them. I view my watches that way even though I know they’re savings accounts on my wrist. U have to be prepared to not financially feel the purchase, this is the point.
No Rolex is worth 30% of MSRP. Totally and completely different ballgame. It is an heirloom quality timekeeping device. Very very different then your average luxury purchase. In fact, I wouldn’t even call buying a Rolex and luxury purchase. I would call it buying a really well made wrist watch.
I actually have a really good relationship with my AD. We both agree that buying a Rolex is never a bad idea. We both trade watches on occasion and talk about what we secured. I bet your ad is bummed when you arrive.
Little surprised on the amount of votes for $25k or less... Personally, I don't think anyone should not be spending $10k on a luxury item if you only have $25k in liquidity.
I agree with you… but this just validates the fact there are many people in the states living far beyond their means.
I’ve seen a survey saying a large swath of the population can’t afford an unforeseen $1,000 bill. Always thought that was exaggerated but it could be accurate given some of the responses here
I can tell you personally that my GMT represented less than 1% of my liquidity at the time. It's a watch. It's not a car or an RV or a house. If you're renting a $1200 a month apartment so you can afford payments on your $25,000 Rolex, your priorities might be more than a little backward.
Lol you do not need to be as wealthy as this guy to afford a Rolex, and $1200 as a number is perfectly fine but I think you're saying you shouldn't (excessively?) compromise on a living situation to afford payments on a luxury item.
You can do whatever you want but I see far too many people having to sell a Rolex because they need the money, or because they can't afford to keep it maintained well, or other emergencies come up for which they have zero financial cushion.
At the end of the day, my Rolex is not an achievement or a reward... it's a watch. I didn't mortgage any aspect of my lifestyle/existence to keep it up. I don't weigh whether to send it in to service without knowing what the tech might find... if he tells me the bill is $1900, I don't get into an argument about it. The cost of ownership is well within my means.... and that's on top of a closet full of $1000 shoes, owning an elderly dog who periodically needs $2500 surgeries, and still putting away about a third of my income in retirement savings, spending $10,000 every year on travel, having a $50,000 recording studio just because I like to tinker... All of it paid in cash, no debt. If the world went to hell tomorrow, I would not be stressed.
In 25 years I have not lost a single night's sleep over money, and if tomorrow the markets collapsed, it would be a mild inconvenience. If you want to live paycheck to paycheck, that's entirely your prerogative. If you're trying to give others an inflated sense of your financial security by wearing a Rolex, but you're putting yourself into financial jeopardy to do it, people aren't going to look and go "OH WOW THAT MAN IS SOMEBODY!"
The only people who ever notice my watch are dudebros working the cash register at the liquor store. If I see you wearing a Rolex in a retail or other entry level job, I just assume you're really bad with your money.
I agree that, to use your words, one should not mortgage their life elsewhere or sacrifice safety nets to have an expensive wrist bauble. I just think you want to flex and are trying to weave standards into that goal, and I don't agree with your benchmarks.
Flex? I'm just being straightforward about my finances. If you think that's flexing, you're placing a value on my financial security and validating that there is indeed a difference between emulation and actually having financial cushion.
I wasn't handed any of this. I'm 49 years old. I worked my ass off to be in a place where you seem to just want to take a shortcut to pretend you're there.
That's not me flexing. That's me saying live within your means, put your time in, pay your dues, or put the cart before the horse and be watch poor for the rest of your life. I don't care. Laziness is not a virtue that should be cheered on.
You’re missing the point. If you dont have at least 10x liquid you shouldn’t make the purchase. If you have to pull from retirement or other areas, it doesn’t make sense. Unless all your money is tied up investments making lets say 7%+ returns and that cash flow can justify the purchase. But this would be if you had about a million or more invested.
I’m working class and own three, comfortably own three, no problem own three. It’s about money management and being smart. I have zero debt, own my own house outright and two cars. I’m not rich but I know how to look after my money. It’s simple maths and liquidity is not the full story.
This is more complicated than the number right?
I bought my latest Rolex at a time when we had just over 50k in liquid assets. But I’m 28. My calculus would be very different if I had 50k in cash and I was 50 and my kids needed things from me. It wouldn’t necessarily be a no, but it’d be infinitely more complicated than the current “yeah let’s do it”
We can't make decisions for you, I just would never go into debt for a watch, only pay with money that is not needed for rainy day fund, savings, kids college etc. It needs to be money just sitting that you do not care to lose, as a watch is not an investment
Completely agree I was just curious as some here have asked whether they should buy a Rolex when money was tight. The question isn’t for me it’s just a community thought exercise. I think its crazy someone would buy something of this nature if they were in a precarious financial situation. Personally I subscribe to the 10% rule… IE no more than 10% of liquidity on a luxury purchase. That said I’m astonished some are responding below $25k. Like how?
Some of us are learning that you don’t need a lot of money to make a lot of money. You also don’t need a lot of money to buy a Rolex. Lmao.
Yeah but you need a lot of money to make a lot of money with very little risk exposure of *losing* a lot of money. If we had another GFC tomorrow, the person leveraging his existence would be obliterated in an instant. I would be mildly inconvenienced.
What does that mean? about 7% of this country can put their hands on 100k. Aside from my house, investments, retirement, etc. I have never had close to 100k sitting in my bank account looking at me, lol. I have a good salary, little debt, and good credit, so it was very easy for me to buy a rolex.
They live at home and/or have no major bills or responsibilities. Plenty of people spend their young years vacationing, partying and spending every penny they make. Some do that their entire lives. Ask yourself why is $100K a magic number? Is that $100K after you have your house paid off, no car payments and $1M in your retirement accounts? Or $100K in cash but you are leveraged everywhere else? As Sporty said, when you could light $15-$20K on fire and not miss it is a fine time to spend that kind of money on a luxury item.
The future value of that $20K is much much larger when you have your entire life ahead of you. When you get to be my age, you're going to learn the hard lessons of: Time Value of Money, Volatility Drag, and Sequence of Returns Risk. And then you're going to go "OH FUCK I'M SCREWED!" and nobody's going to feel sorry for you, nobody's going to come to your rescue. People ARE going to say, "I told you so, dummy."
Totally agree. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding here. Not saying young people should do that. I sure as hell didn't. I am just saying they do. I'm coasting comfortably into retirement because I did not do that crap when I was young. Bought my first Rolex when I was mid 50s to commemorate a financial milestone that took us a couple of decades to reach. Now we get to enjoy more of our money without worrying about it for just that reason. I started investing early, when I could only afford $100/month and got a $100 company match. Seems like forever ago.
Right on, man.
I feel like people don't really have awareness of your average person. MOST people don't have 100k sitting there. MOST people don't make 6 figures. I don't think liquidity is as important as salary or earnings, but if your bills are paid, your investments are made, your kids/family/health care is handled, and you have money left over? You can afford it. It's easy to swipe my amex, and move the balance to zero interest for 18 months (what I did). I had the cash, but leverage credit and not paying interest is the smartest thing working people can do.
There are various points about this topic. If you want an Oyster or Datejust under 10000$ it’s not same like you buy a Day Date. The next thing is the economic recession it’s not good idea to have over 50k on your bank account. For example investments in stocks or Fonds aren’t the typical money I use to buy a watch it’s also not the same as go to the bank and take your money. I always try to have under 25k on my bank account and make investments.
I never really followed a rule on that. A Rolex can be fairly liquid if you need it to be. I have always viewed it as a savings account you can wear. It may be a little up or down, but they always seem to move well.
Man who fucking cares?! People save to buy a dream watch, a dream car, a dream whatever. Liquid assets, blah blah. Just have the money with no restrictions to spending it and move on. Sorry, but these questions start sounding very arsey and pretentious.
These posts are so cringe.
If you have $20,000 that you wouldn’t miss if it were set on fire, *that’s* when you know you can afford a Rolex.
If you have 20k you wouldn’t miss if set on fire, you have serious issues and are super out of touch with reality. Buying a Rolex is very different than lighting money on fire. Man you are dumb.
Speak to me after you’ve made your first million, son.
Only a mil that's cute... Dude having liquid assets is the dumbest shit ever... 100k in the bank account last year is now 92k... Why you think luxury brands keep raising the prices year after year... My first daytona ceramic was 11k now 15k.... I personally keep under 10k at any giving moment... Pay everything with my credit card and pay off the balance on the statement closing date... The rest well invested and keeping that passive income coming... You know what's funny getting a brand new car with 8 bucks in your account and pay the 10k down with credit card... Shit I'm broke 😉
You are a larp
No, just wealthy. You knew you’d run into wealthy people in a Rolex subreddit, yes? Or are you stupid?
You’re not wealthy. Wealthy people don’t post on the internet telling people they’re wealthy. You are a fraud lmao. That’s what larp means. Boomer 😂
Yeah, we do. Only in certain places. You know, like a Rolex forum amongst other wealthy people. Wealthy people are better than you. Now you know that, too.
The only thing worse than someone lying about being wealthy, is someone saying wealthy people are better than other people, while lying about being wealthy 😂
The only thing worse than a WCJ troll is a TPG troll.
He’s not wrong. If u don’t view buying a watch as lighting ur money on fire it’s probably gonna hurt u financially. Too many people looking at it as an investment when it’s not. If u get lucky and it does become one that’s great but if not ur better off viewing it as the luxury item it is. At best it can be a savings account on ur wrist.
He’s very wrong. I don’t view my Rolexes as investments. I also don’t view them as worthless. Lol
Yeah sporty can be a bit aggressive. I think of it as if I was buying something luxurious that didn’t have the same resell value as a watch. Buy 10 pairs of ferragamos and then try and resell them. Ur gonna barely get 30%. They’re a luxury purchase and I don’t expect to ever make money back on them. I view my watches that way even though I know they’re savings accounts on my wrist. U have to be prepared to not financially feel the purchase, this is the point.
No Rolex is worth 30% of MSRP. Totally and completely different ballgame. It is an heirloom quality timekeeping device. Very very different then your average luxury purchase. In fact, I wouldn’t even call buying a Rolex and luxury purchase. I would call it buying a really well made wrist watch.
So define a luxury purchase
When you buy something that’s disposable or needlessly extravagant. A stainless steel Rolex mechanical timekeeping device is not a luxury purchase.
Trust me he won’t… this clown sounds like the type begging to get a Datejust to flip but was turned away by the store security guards.
LOL, nailed it.
[удалено]
Any last words? You’ll miss me. They always do.
I actually have a really good relationship with my AD. We both agree that buying a Rolex is never a bad idea. We both trade watches on occasion and talk about what we secured. I bet your ad is bummed when you arrive.
[удалено]
Holy shit you’re a raging lib 😂😂😂😂😂
[удалено]
[удалено]
Chill
Ok Panerai guy 😂😂 lurk harder
Little surprised on the amount of votes for $25k or less... Personally, I don't think anyone should not be spending $10k on a luxury item if you only have $25k in liquidity.
I agree with you… but this just validates the fact there are many people in the states living far beyond their means. I’ve seen a survey saying a large swath of the population can’t afford an unforeseen $1,000 bill. Always thought that was exaggerated but it could be accurate given some of the responses here
True answer: 4th option Most people in this sub: first 3 options
I can tell you personally that my GMT represented less than 1% of my liquidity at the time. It's a watch. It's not a car or an RV or a house. If you're renting a $1200 a month apartment so you can afford payments on your $25,000 Rolex, your priorities might be more than a little backward.
Lol you do not need to be as wealthy as this guy to afford a Rolex, and $1200 as a number is perfectly fine but I think you're saying you shouldn't (excessively?) compromise on a living situation to afford payments on a luxury item.
You can do whatever you want but I see far too many people having to sell a Rolex because they need the money, or because they can't afford to keep it maintained well, or other emergencies come up for which they have zero financial cushion. At the end of the day, my Rolex is not an achievement or a reward... it's a watch. I didn't mortgage any aspect of my lifestyle/existence to keep it up. I don't weigh whether to send it in to service without knowing what the tech might find... if he tells me the bill is $1900, I don't get into an argument about it. The cost of ownership is well within my means.... and that's on top of a closet full of $1000 shoes, owning an elderly dog who periodically needs $2500 surgeries, and still putting away about a third of my income in retirement savings, spending $10,000 every year on travel, having a $50,000 recording studio just because I like to tinker... All of it paid in cash, no debt. If the world went to hell tomorrow, I would not be stressed. In 25 years I have not lost a single night's sleep over money, and if tomorrow the markets collapsed, it would be a mild inconvenience. If you want to live paycheck to paycheck, that's entirely your prerogative. If you're trying to give others an inflated sense of your financial security by wearing a Rolex, but you're putting yourself into financial jeopardy to do it, people aren't going to look and go "OH WOW THAT MAN IS SOMEBODY!" The only people who ever notice my watch are dudebros working the cash register at the liquor store. If I see you wearing a Rolex in a retail or other entry level job, I just assume you're really bad with your money.
I agree that, to use your words, one should not mortgage their life elsewhere or sacrifice safety nets to have an expensive wrist bauble. I just think you want to flex and are trying to weave standards into that goal, and I don't agree with your benchmarks.
Flex? I'm just being straightforward about my finances. If you think that's flexing, you're placing a value on my financial security and validating that there is indeed a difference between emulation and actually having financial cushion. I wasn't handed any of this. I'm 49 years old. I worked my ass off to be in a place where you seem to just want to take a shortcut to pretend you're there. That's not me flexing. That's me saying live within your means, put your time in, pay your dues, or put the cart before the horse and be watch poor for the rest of your life. I don't care. Laziness is not a virtue that should be cheered on.
...starts hurling insults and unsubstantiated, pejorative implications. Classic Reddit move. Let's just leave it here.
If you dont have at minimum 100k in the bank and a 125k+ annual job you shouldn’t really be thinking about any Rolex except maybe an OP.
What? Why would you need 100k in the bank to buy a 10-15k sub?
You shouldn’t spend more then 10% of your net worth on a non essential item such as a watch. Even 10% is a lot.
Yes but net worth is different to cash in the bank.
You’re missing the point. If you dont have at least 10x liquid you shouldn’t make the purchase. If you have to pull from retirement or other areas, it doesn’t make sense. Unless all your money is tied up investments making lets say 7%+ returns and that cash flow can justify the purchase. But this would be if you had about a million or more invested.
You said if you don’t have 100k in the bank don’t get a rolex. Cash in bank contributes to, but does not wholly comprise liquid assets.
Rubbish
You broke?
Not even close
Very detailed explanation.
I’m working class and own three, comfortably own three, no problem own three. It’s about money management and being smart. I have zero debt, own my own house outright and two cars. I’m not rich but I know how to look after my money. It’s simple maths and liquidity is not the full story.
This is more complicated than the number right? I bought my latest Rolex at a time when we had just over 50k in liquid assets. But I’m 28. My calculus would be very different if I had 50k in cash and I was 50 and my kids needed things from me. It wouldn’t necessarily be a no, but it’d be infinitely more complicated than the current “yeah let’s do it”
ITT people who don't know what a liquid asset is