Overspending - how to handle in YNAB vs YNAB 4

I am trialling 'new' YNAB after loving YNAB 4 for many years, and one of the things I cannot wrap my head around is practicality of dealing with overspending in categories where we used the red arrow before (I understand the reason behind it, and think the extra awareness will be a good thing) but how does it work?

We had a number of categories like our 'no questions asked' money where we allowed ourselves to carry the overspend into the future month, and then bring it back into balance next month

How do I cover that overspending in the current month, yet make that category pay it back next month? If that makes any sense..
If i overspend on my fun money, and family outings, and birthday presents and cover each with emergency funds so it's all square, what do I do so that next month that money comes back out of those categories and into the emergency fund again?
Am I writing little notes so I don't forget which category owes which other category money? and manually moving stuff backwards and forwards each month? or is there an easy way to make this all happen?

My concern is that by covering any overspending from the emergency fund without some way to make sure I get it back again then we will just be dipping into our emergency fund to pay for some jeans that were on sale now not next month, then not realising next month we actually have less fun money available, and doing that over and over will not be a good thing.

(I am still reading through how to cover reimbursements and get my head around that as the red arrow was such an easy solution for that too)

94replies Oldest first
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Active threads
  • Popular
  • If new jeans are important, then find something else less important and take that money. You don't even have to pay it back, since it was LESS IMPORTANT.

    Realistically, you should pick on the LEAST important thing in the entire budget that has money.

    Reply Like 4
    • dakinemaui This doesn't make sense to me.

      If I budget $X for Clothing, to me it means that, over an arbitrarily long period of time, I want to average spending $X per month for Clothing. In some months spending will be lower and I'll build up a balance. Some months it will be higher and that balance will decrease.

      Now, let's say that at the end of summer, there's a big sale on summer clothes and I buy a lot of clothes because I can afford it (there is money in other categories) and because I get more value for my money. The result is that my Clothing balance goes negative.

      In YNAB4, I'd turn the arrow right and the Clothing balance would take care of itself. Yes, I realize the potential danger, but it's a conscious choice. I'll cover the overspending by spending less on Clothing next month.

      In YNAB now, I'm basically forced to cover the overspending this month. OK, fine, I see the reasoning.

      However, it doesn't make sense to me to talk about what is "less important" as if that label is static. When I'm buying the clothes, my New Car category is "less important" because my car is running and I need the clothes. Tomorrow, or next month, my Clothing category is "less important" because I have new clothes.

      If I overspend on Clothing in one month that does not mean that I want my Clothing category permanently to take money from my New Car. It means Clothing borrowed the money from New Car and does need to pay it back so that my long term Clothing and New Car targets are still on track for the long term, even if they've fluctuated in the short term.

      Bottom line, I need a way to carry over a negative balance to the next month for some categories to keep my long term target in place and using notes, or the like, is a very clunky way to do it. It's the second most annoying thing, after the subscription model, of the current app.

      Reply Like 2
      • dakinemaui
      • dakinemaui
      • 12 days ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa I agree with almost everything you said. In particular, when new money comes in, if Clothing is less important at that point in time, then sure, budget less to Clothing. However, mandating that Clothing takes the hit because that's the "reason" for the original reallocation is bad logic. As you say, priorities change, and I feel budget allocations should be based on your best estimate of them moving forward.

      The budget is a forward-looking spending plan, after all. Not a punishment mechanism.

      Reply Like 1
    • dakinemaui It's not "bad logic" just because I don't accept your premises. What's not logical is calling it "punishment" to bring Clothing spending back into line with where I want it in the long term.

      Buying extra clothing is the reason for the original reallocation and, after taking advantage of sales to save money in the long term, I don't want that overspending to remain with the Clothing category by giving it its usual allocation in the next month.

      Reply Like 1
      • dakinemaui
      • dakinemaui
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa which premise do you reject? The only one I believe I've stated is that the lowest priority category take the hit, both when seeking to reallocate as well as planning with new money.

      Your budget, of course.

      Reply Like
    • dakinemaui I reject the premise that a category shouldn't, in some circumstances, take the hit for overspending in that category. If I want to spend, say, $2400 in a rolling 12 months for clothing, the best way, in my view, to accomplish that is to budget less for clothing if I spend too much in the short term.

      It's not "punishment" to do so. It's recognizing that my Clothing spending is ahead of pace and needs to slow down, even if the reason it is ahead of pace is for a good reason.

      Reply Like 1
    • Herman YNAB4 is. The new YNAB isn't, but I only use Macs.

      I didn't know that trying to stick to a plan even if purchases don't nicely line up with arbitrary calendar dates was a "particular methodology," though.

      Maybe this example would be clearer: I plan to spend, say, $2400 for Christmas, so I budget $200 a month starting in January. By December, I'll have my $2400 and everything is peachy.

      In March, I have $600 set aside but run across a sale on exactly what I'll need for some people, so I spend $700. In my "particular methodology" I'd want to cover the spending from another category, but decrease Christmas to $100 the next month so that I spend $2400, not $2500, on Christmas. Is that so odd?

      Reply Like 2
      • Tif_Ann
      • Tif_Ann
      • 12 days ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa The premise is you don't spend money you don't have. You say, but I have it, I just want to PRETEND it's still sitting in another category until some arbitrary time in the future when I pay it back. But you don't. It does no good to you or your budget to say you have $500 in the car category when you don't actually have $500 in the bank account anymore.

      This is a cash based system. You save up for what you want and spend when you have the money. You don't spend $2400 on Christmas and then budget $200 a month the following year to pay it back. You budget $200 per month in advance and spend that $2400 after it's saved.

      If you have $600 saved in a category and spend $700, you have to decide what you decided was less important to take it from. Take $100 from the vacation fund for next year? Great. Then you can decide to pay it back or not.

      You can simply let the overspend roll over and have less money to allocate next month, so when you see that you are $100 overspent next month, it'll take it from what's available so instead of putting $200 in Christmas you only put in $100.

      Reply Like 1
      • WordTenor
      • Arranged the menu, the venue, the seating.
      • WordTenor
      • 12 days ago
      • 5
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa 

      Habanero Salsa said:
      If I budget $X for Clothing, to me it means that, over an arbitrarily long period of time, I want to average spending $X per month for Clothing.

       That might be what it means to you, but that's not what it means to YNAB, and YNAB is programmed to do what YNAB means. When you budget $X to Clothing, it means that of the money you have right now, you are reserving $X for spending on clothing at some point in the future (might be 5 minutes from now or 50 years from now). It's not an average, a wish, an estimation, or a "hope-to." It's an envelope. And if you need more money in the envelope than you put there, you have to take it out of some other envelope. 

      Reply Like 5
    • WordTenor I’m not talking about taking money from another category to cover the spending. That’s fine. I’m talking about not allocating as much to the category the next month so I don’t end up spending more on clothing in the long term. I think you’re talking about something completely different than what I am. 

      Reply Like 1
    • Tif_Ann I’m not taking about spending money I don’t have. I’ll cover the overspending. That’s not the issue. Once the overspending is covered, I want to allocate less to clothing next month to bring clothing spending back in line with where it needs to be over the long term. 
       

      Those are two different issues. 

      Reply Like 1
      • KaraBoo
      • A goal without a plan is just a wish
      • KaraBoo
      • 12 days ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa I agree with you. I have my Amazon Prime set up where I add $X in it each week throughout the year. When it bills at the end of the year, it's fully funded. But yesterday they were running a sale where vets got $40 off their membership. So I did it to save that money, even though my category wasn't fully funded. So I moved the money from my holding to pay for Amazon Prime and left a note on the category saying to put the money that would have gone in there into holding until X date. I don't "have" to pay back holding. But I also don't need to budget more to Amazon Prime than my target dollar amount.

      Reply Like 1
      • WordTenor
      • Arranged the menu, the venue, the seating.
      • WordTenor
      • 12 days ago
      • 2
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa If you mean to spend an average, spend an average; that's what the rest of us are saying. You don't need to spend every dollar you budget, so your spending isn't tied to the amount you've budgeted. It's tied to the amount that's available.  

      Trust your moves in your budget. If you needed more money for clothing, you needed more money for clothing. If you took from emergency for clothing, you decided clothing was more important than the remote possibility of an emergency. You don't have to "pay yourself back" or "average it out." You changed your priorities today. Tomorrow, they might be different; budget for tomorrow's priorities tomorrow. 

      Reply Like 2
      • jenmas
      • jenmas
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      WordTenor I agree. I don't look at the amount I budgeted this month to see how much I can spend, I look at the available balance. And I may not "want" to spend more than $X on clothes this year, but sometimes needs must (currently confronted with 2 pairs of busted black shoes that need to be replaced 😢). But if for some reason $2400 is your hard cut off, why not just look at a spending report and see that as of November 8th you've spent $2375 on clothes this year and just not spend anymore?

      Reply Like
    • WordTenor The only way I can spend an average, over the long term, is to offset high months with low months, and vice versa. That's what carrying over unspent money does. That's what carrying over overspent money does.

      I feel like I'm getting customer support speak from a script rather than anything that actually addresses what I'm saying.

      I don't need to budget more for clothing. I have the right amount of money budgeted for clothing. However, given end of season sales (in particular but not exclusively) expenditures are lumpy but even out in the end. If the lump occurs at the "wrong" time, clothing gets overspent but catches up.

      It's not a question of whether I "have to" pay back a category. That's what I want to do because that's one of the things that keeps category creep from happening for me. If I spent too much in clothing now, I need to spend less in clothing later.

      Again, this sounds like marketing speak. My priorities didn't change. I'm not choosing clothes over a new car because I'm not buying a new car right now. If I were, I'd do without the clothes. This is purely an accounting, paperwork move, not a priorities change.

      Reply Like 1
    • jenmas Because months, or even years, make sense for some expenses -- namely, the ones that are explicitly billed monthly or annually -- but they don't necessarily makes sense for other categories -- namely, the ones that aren't.

      It makes no financial sense, in my view, to skip opportunities to increase the value of one's dollars because of where the opportunity falls on the calendar. If I'm running a constant negative, I'm spending too much candor not budgeting enough. If I'm occasionally negative because expenditures are lumpy but I'm on target in the long term, arbitrary date cutoffs are form over function.

      Reply Like 2
      • Bezona
      • Formerly Gold Rhythm 3
      • Bezona
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      KaraBoo Where did you see discount for veterans?

      Reply Like
      • jenmas
      • jenmas
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa 

      I guess it's just a different way of looking at things. I have budgeted the exact same amount to my clothing category every month for years. Many months I spend $0. But I have a handbag problem (accessories come under clothing for me) and sometimes I go a little nuts. I immediately reallocate from another category to cover any overspend and then I just move on with my life. I don't pay back that category I took from. I just don't. If decided that handbag was more important than eating out in November, well then that's the way it is and eating out just doesn't deserve to be paid back in the future. It would never occur to me to take from my New Car category (which does exist in my budget) to offset clothing. Clothing is discretionary spending for the most part (exceptions being major weight, climate or cultural change). I mean sure I would like a new pair of black pants that isn't slightly faded, but I have black pants that fit. Even my busted black shoes can be worked around. So if I overspend on clothing it has to come from other discretionary categories like eating out, groceries, entertainment, personal care.

      Also I know how to do arithmetic. If I budget $200 every month to a category but think I went a little nuts last month, I know how to only budget $100 in December. I actually would never do that as noted above, but if I wanted to, I could do it manually.

      Also also the simple fact is that YNAB is not going to bring back the red arrow so you either have to adapt to that reality, use YNAB 4 (perhaps on a virtual machine if you are a Mac user on Catalina), or find a new budgeting program.

      Reply Like
      • KaraBoo
      • A goal without a plan is just a wish
      • KaraBoo
      • 12 days ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Bezona You can sign up for it  here until 11/11:  https://www.amazon.com/prime/promo/pricing/landing?promoID=A3J87G75D3ZPEJ 

      Reply Like 1
    • jenmas Thanks for the implication that I don't know how to do math. If I have to cover overspending, I know I went over. And I know how to do math. What I do now is keep notes of what math needs to be done. It would be better if YNAB kept that information for me, since it already knows that.

      I didn't ask for the red arrow to be brought back, so if you're going to continue to be rude and put words in my mouth, please help someone else.

      Reply Like
      • jenmas
      • jenmas
      • 12 days ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa I just don't see how YNAB storing the overspending info automatically is any different than the red arrow. That's literally what the red arrow did.

      Reply Like 1
    • jenmas No, it isn't. YNAB could still "require" covering the overspending in the current month. The red arrow literally didn't require that, so that's the difference. Storing it versus automatically implementing it is another difference.

      Then, in the next month, YNAB could indicate somehow that overspending was covered in the previous month and offer the option to adjust the budgeted amount by that previous amount. You get the upside of the red arrow, as far as simplicity, without the downside of the red arrow, untrustworthy category amounts.

      As I said before, my dad was the programmer, not me, so maybe there's a better way to do it, but it seems like it could be done pretty easily without undermining the benefits of getting rid of the arrow.

      Reply Like 2
      • jenmas
      • jenmas
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa YNAB has shown zero indication that they have any interest in adding this kind of feature regardless of how easy it is. At best they will tell you to use the memo field. If you are intent on banging your head against a brick wall, fill out a feature request which is on the landing page for this forum that will just disappear into a black hole never to be heard of again. Or just change your approach to using YNAB and don't use the "pay it back" mentality. It's fine to want things, but YNAB doesn't seem to be all that responsive to user wants so your options are get over it or find another program.

      Reply Like
    • jenmas Unfortunately, those seem to be the options.

      My dad taught me how to use YNAB4 from the time I started getting an allowance and could understand what a budget even was. He spent a lot of time helping people on the forums, in private messages, in emails, and even on the phone. He had me where I could do just about anything I wanted in YNAB4 and I feel like I really understand how it works.

      Soon, I won't be able to run it. The new YNAB isn't terrible but it seems to have abandoned what made previous versions so attractive. Even though it feels more like a generic envelope system, I'll probably stick with it because of the memories attached to the name.

      I've occasionally browsed the forums but never posted until this topic, which addressed exactly the main thorn in my side during my trial. Even though I recognize two or three of the user names I've heard before, I guess I'll just fade back into the background and see if I can make it work for me.

      Reply Like
      • jenmas
      • jenmas
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa If you are a Mac user, you can just run a virtual machine to keep YNAB 4 running. There are multiple threads on how to do that in this forum.

      Reply Like
      • Green Boat
      • Green_Boat.1
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      jenmas I am certainly considering the VM option, but I am really trying to give 'new' YNAB a proper go - but a month is actually a very short time to adjust to some big differences before deciding, and its all giving me a headache
      on top of the mac issue dropbox is being a turd about sharing the files with multiple devices, so moving over really seems the easiest solution, but I need to wrap my head around how to do some stuff i have been doing for a long time... although I am also looking at the change over as positive as the red arrow allowed us to be a bit lax in some areas (which I am looking forward to changing) but in others it introduces some practical difficulties 

      Reply Like
    • jenmas Not enough free hard drive space for a Windows VM on my laptop. 

      Reply Like
      • Tobias
      • Toviathan
      • 12 days ago
      • 2
      • Reported - view

      Green Boat As a side note on the trial, support has always been really nice about extending trials if you ask. That way you could give it a go for a little longer before deciding.

      Reply Like 2
      • Green Boat
      • Green_Boat.1
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Tobias - oh that is good to know, as that ticking down date before my trial runs out has been making me feel stressed :)

      Reply Like
    • Green Boat Stress is no good at all. I sent you a quick message! 

      Reply Like 2
    • Habanero Salsa  I wholeheartedly agree. We are finding the new YNAB extremely annoying, in that it has taken AWAY functionality and forcing us to do it their way. We liked the overspending carrying over to the next month for the same reasons you described. Now, the overspending just disappears. We're not stupid, we can manage a red category because that's how we've been doing it for years and like it that way. So now we are doing the trial (again), but we are likely moving on. If anyone knows of a program that works more like YNAB 4 and allows overspending into the next month, I'd love to know what you use!

      Reply Like
      • Superbone
      • YNAB convert since 2008
      • Superbone
      • 7 days ago
      • 2
      • Reported - view

      Maroon Mask That's going to be your issue. AFAIK, nobody had found a better alternative but let us know if you do. The good thing is that it's not that hard to work around and better represents reality. Good luck!

      Reply Like 2
      • bret
      • bret
      • 7 days ago
      • 2
      • Reported - view
      Superbone said:
      The good thing is that it's not that hard to work around

       Worth elaborating since I haven't seen the workaround mentioned in this discussion yet:

      You can manually reinstate the month-end negative balance (overspend) by making a negative budget entry  in the new month. Essentially a "manual red arrow", not unlike how people recreate the YNAB 4 "Income for Next Month" workflow with manual budget steps.

      Sure, the workaround doesn't scale well (= gets tedious) if you have lots of overspent categories each month (or the same categories remain negative month after month). But perhaps that's a sign that you shouldn't be operating your budget that way...

      For myself, I only give one category this "manual red arrow" treatment: Reimbursable Work Expenses. That's the one category where I find it useful to preserve the negative balance, because it's a convenient reminder of exactly how much $ my employer owes me at any given time.

      For discretionary spending categories like "clothing", I simple budget for the overspending and move along. To keep my long term spending under control (aligned with my priorities), I periodically review spending reports and make adjustments to my budgets as needed.

      Reply Like 2
  • We have a holding category where we keep extra money. If something comes up that we just gotta have right now, I borrow from holding. I then leave a note in whatever category I stole for that $X needs to be paid back to holding. Doing it this way means I never have to steal from any important categories. It's not something we do often, but it's nice to have as an option every now and then.

    Reply Like 3
      • dakinemaui
      • dakinemaui
      • 12 days ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      KaraBoo since that holding category is apparently the least important thing in the budget, I find it odd that you would want to pay it back. The money it takes to do that has to come from somewhere more important, which strikes me as exactly backwards.

      It's a common thing for new users to do, but if you think about it a bit, I suspect you'll realize it's not in your best interest to do so.

      Reply Like 1
      • KaraBoo
      • A goal without a plan is just a wish
      • KaraBoo
      • 12 days ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      dakinemaui I'm a full-time six year YNAB veteran. :)

      I don't always pay it back. It just depends on what I stole it for. If it was a  splurge of something we wanted versus a need, I'm more likely to pay it back. If I stole from holding to put into my fun money, I'll put less money into my fun money the next week and put it back into holding. I like the holding to be as padded as possible for overspending of the more important "need" categories so I never find myself venturing into emergency fund land.

      Reply Like 1
      • dakinemaui
      • dakinemaui
      • 12 days ago
      • 5
      • Reported - view

      For the benefit of the OP, I'll point out that priorities change all the time, and traditional "wants" may become quite elevated temporarily. After a bad day when I REALLY don't feel like cooking dinner and cleaning up -- but Eating Out is empty -- you can bet I'm going to look to steal money from something and order pizza.  But the thing is, if I had known I was going to have a bad day when I originally made the budget, I would have put more money in Eating Out to start with.

      If restoring a padding category is important when new money arrives, that's great, but the thing that doesn't get money as a result should be the lowest priority category. That might wind up being the same category for which you originally moved from padding, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so. I'd also suggest that reminder notes in that category as a "general practice" might induce someone to short that category when they really should pick on something else. Again, this is meant more as food for thought for the OP.

      On a slightly different note, a chronic or repeated reallocation into a particular category is an indication it's more important to you than you perhaps originally thought or that you simply guessed too low. Consider bumping it up to start with (as the nominal plan) when there are more places to potentially take the hit.

      Reply Like 5
      • Green Boat
      • Green_Boat.1
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      dakinemaui 
      thank you - i do appreciate the prompting, and chronic overspending in particular areas is something i am have been guilty of and actually like that the red arrow will stop that in some ways - my struggle is really in cases where the spending will even out so needs to stay in a category
      birthdays are an excellent example - I budget what is needed across the year for all the birthdays, but some are bunched, so I will overspend at one point in the year and then make it up again - perhaps this needs a bigger solution, but I don't want to be budgeting different amounts to a category across different months (if that makes sense) 
       

      Reply Like
    • Green Boat It might make sense to give a one-time bump to your birthday party category to get you past the bump for one year, then use your normal, constant allocation to build it up again from then on. 

      Reply Like 2
      • Green Boat
      • Green_Boat.1
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa I could, but my fear with that is that I have effectively then raised the amount in that category for the year and then I will spend that whole amount, if that makes any sense
      that, or I will have a heap of extra sitting in categories to cover the lumps, although that would be no different than having a holding category, I would have just split up the holding money...
      We actually have quite a few categories that at one point or another will be overspent but the average works out.

      Reply Like
      • dakinemaui
      • dakinemaui
      • 11 days ago
      • 3
      • Reported - view

      Green Boat Here's a simple scenario: you have one birthday present to give all year at the end of January. You want to spend $120. You've already budgeted all of Nov, and you have $0 toward Birthdays.

      What should you budget in Dec (assuming that's high enough on the priority scale to get money)? What about Jan? And finally Feb and so forth?

      If you said $60 in both Dec and Jan, you're doing well. Feb and onward is only $10/month.

      My point is, there are almost always two amounts. The startup and the nominal or steady-state.

      A more complicated scenario will probably have 2 as well (sometimes more), but eventually you hit the steady state phase where the amounts stay the same. (Where that is just depends on the amounts and timing.)

      In other words, you can probably get away with one level of contribution in the short term and then the nominal after that. 

      The nominal is 1/12 the total of all birthdays combined. You need a higher contribution in the short term because you don't typically have as much time to save up, but the money obviously has to come from somewhere.

      However, IF you fund the category with enough up front to cover the difference, you can go with the nominal contributions right away. 

      Either way works.

      YNAB doesn't actually have a Goal like this. The best you can do without resorting to external calculations is a category group for everyone with a category per person with their own By Date goal. Easy.

      It won't necessarily be the same amount during each of the startup phase months, but at least it won't increase.

      Reply Like 3
  • Habanero Salsa said:
    I need a way to carry over a negative balance to the next month for some categories to keep my long term target in place

    So this is where we differ. That long-term target was formulated perhaps months ago. Gamely sticking to that static target in the face of ever changing priorities denies the changing nature of those priorities. And whos to say you guessed the originally priority/amounts correctly in the first place?

    Acknowledging the fact that "money has to come from somewhere" is powerful. Spending more than you planned on has consequences, and if you dislike those consequences more than you like whatever caused the overspending, you will naturally change your behavior. OTOH, if those consequences are no big deal by comparison to what you gained by reallocation, then your plan is better aligned with your true priorities. That's a good thing.

    Kicking the can down the road with carried overspending loses this benefit. You will not have nearly the understanding of those underlying priorities as a result. In this specific example, one might realize those end-of-summer sales were important, and that you might consider saving up to be able to take advantage of making your money go further.

    Having accurate category balances is important too, but that's not the only reason Rule 3 exists. Developing this intuitive understanding of underlying priorities is quite invaluable.

    Reply Like 4
    • dakinemaui That's fine. We differ. I don't want to change my long term plan because a clothing sale ends on August 31 instead of September 1.

      The carryover doesn't have to be a red arrow, but it doesn't need to be as broken as keeping notes, either.

      Reply Like
    • Habanero Salsa Sounds like you want a goal type: Budget the normal amount minus the amount above the normal amount from last month. You could always put this as a feature request. However, I encourage you to try this paradigm shift with regard to what everyone has mentioned above. It took 3 months for us to trust it, but it did actually even out, even in discretionary categories. 

      I also refer back to an old post of 's to set up known, annual categories for cash flow. Scroll down and find the posts with the graphs. https://support.youneedabudget.com/t/y727d8/budgeting-for-future-transactions

      Reply Like
    • Move Light Sound Life I’ve used YNAB for about a third of my life. I’m familiar with the concept. I simply want to repay the specific category from which I covered overspending from the category that received the extra money. 

      I can force it manually. It’s kind of silly because it doesn’t even affect the current month, but it’s my impression that YNAB doesn’t listen much to user input anymore. Oh well. 

      Reply Like 3
      • dakinemaui
      • dakinemaui
      • 10 days ago
      • 2
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa 

      Habanero Salsa said:
      it’s my impression that YNAB doesn’t listen much to user input anymore.

       Totally agree with that. Development of user-facing features has been characterized as "glacial". To much attention to Direct Import and the API, IMHO.

      Reply Like 2
      • nolesrule
      • YNAB4 Evangelist
      • nolesrule
      • 10 days ago
      • Reported - view

      dakinemaui You are being kind with that characterization. Although to be fair they did add 2 new goals after 3 and 3/4 years after the official launch. That's about the amount of time someone spends in high school.

      Reply Like
      • dakinemaui
      • dakinemaui
      • 9 days ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      nolesrule IMHO, the Spend By Date goal is what should have been implemented in the first place, It covers both the Vacation and semi-annual Car Insurance use cases.

      In other words, the Save By Date goal is redundant.

      Reply Like 1
  • Overspending in YNAB theory is dealt with across categories in the same time period (this month, right here, right now) à la Rule 3: Roll with the Punches rather than in some vague future time where you will adhere perfectly to the plan and reduce your spending in that same category to make up for it.

    I implemented Rule 3 fairly early on in my YNAB use as a test of the methodology that I will admit I fully expected would fail dismally -- I was absolutely convinced there would be a lot of spillage in my categories -- and it was so simple. It just worked. I spent more where and when I needed to spend more, but my overall spending each month came in actually lower than it had ever been.  I'd say that was a phenomenal and unexpected result. And the bonus was no longer keeping track.

    By first testing the theory and then permanently  implementing Rule 3 (it's been five years now), and by not allowing any overspending to cross the month's threshold into next month, I finally learned how to make value decisions for every overspend rather than shrugging it off, sneaking one through, or pretending it would be dealt with in the future.  I was also able to finally see that one of the reasons I had previously had issues with, what I thought was,  overspending  was that I was underfunding some categories. Well, no wonder I was overspending!

    Reply Like 2
  • Habanero Salsa said:
    It's recognizing that my Clothing spending is ahead of pace and needs to slow down

    I think we're speaking past each other here. I totally agree in some circumstances that same category takes the hit. The reason I think that's fine is precisely because of what you said, which I quoted -- it is now a lower priority.

    This is in contrast to the flawed logic of "because I overspent there in the first place". Sometimes it won't be a lower priority and following this approach in such an instance would lead you to short a more important category.

    I really can't sum it up any better than this: the lowest priority category should take the hit, both when seeking to reallocate as well as planning with new money. Any other criterion has the potential to be misaligned with your priorities.

    Reply Like
    • dakinemaui Again, “I spent too much on clothes this month, so I want to allocate less to clothes next month” isn’t flawed logic. 

      Reply Like
  • dakinemaui said:
    I think we're speaking past each other here. I totally agree in some circumstances that same category takes the hit.

     

    Habanero Salsa said:
    Again, “I spent too much on clothes this month, so I want to allocate less to clothes next month” isn’t flawed logic. 


    I think you both just said the same thing. 🙂

    If it makes you feel better Habanero Salsa , I agree with you that the YNAB 4 "Red Arrow" was a really convenient way to have YNAB automatically subtract overspending from the same category in the following month. But it's gone now, so you'll have to suffer without it.

    Reply Like 1
    • bret Well, "have to" is kind of strong. I'm not a programmer, that was my dad's thing, but it seems like -- even with covering overspending in the current month -- YNAB could be told to remember that overspending and apply it in the next month's budgeted amount to achieve what the red arrow did while still covering current overspending. Having to make notes and do things like this manually is clunkier than it needs to be.

      Reply Like
      • bret
      • bret
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa 

      YNAB had legitimate reasons for removing the red arrow. Understanding those reasons (even if you disagree with them) might make it easier to swallow.

       

      Habanero Salsa said:
      Well, "have to" is kind of strong....  Having to make notes and do things like this manually is clunkier than it needs to be.

      (emphasis added)

      "Have to" is kind of strong 🙂   You don't have to resort to notes -- which I agree are clumsy.

      Reply Like
    • bret I understand perfectly well why they removed the red arrow. I'm not asking for the red arrow. I'd asking for a way to store the information about the overspending so that info can easily be rolled into the next month, since it gets wiped out when covered in the current month.

      Can you explain how I can otherwise apply a negative amount into the budgeted amount for next month, without notes?

      Reply Like
      • Ceeses
      • Ceeses
      • 9 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa If you want to spend $X on average in a category. When budgeting, look at the Average Spent amount in the inspector. If it's more than you like, budget less than you normally would. How much less depends on how long you want to take to bring the average down and your likely min. spend in that month for that category.

      Reply Like
    • Ceeses Trying to figure out how to adjust an average of indeterminate length seems like a lot more work and a lot less inexact than keeping notes or just going into the next month and making the adjustments there. 

      The more I think about it, if I covered $50 of overspending in A from B, I can immediately go into the next month and budget -$50 in A and $50 in B, which will zero out and put my categories where I want them. So, if I’ve already budgeted the next month that will, I think, give me the same numbers I’d have had in YNAB 4. I just need to be extra careful with data entry. 

      Reply Like 3
      • nolesrule
      • YNAB4 Evangelist
      • nolesrule
      • 9 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa

      Habanero Salsa said:
      I just need to be extra careful with data entry.

       That's going to be the case regardless of what you do, and not just in moving money around. Unfortunately lack of visibility in data entry errors is one of the shortcomings of the new software.

      Reply Like
  • Just switched to newest version after using YNAB4 for years. I find it very hard. I want the darn arrow back!!

    Reply Like
      • Green Boat
      • Green_Boat.1
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Slate Gray Cheetah I get why its not the overall, as it can lead to chronic overspending, but its a big change in some really practical ways - for me the biggest headache is work reimbursements

      Reply Like
  • Ok, this is a long thread but I don't think I saw this remarked on.  I've been playing with the new target date spending goal to deal with these situations.  For instance, our gas cost goes up and down over the year depending on my son's school schedule.  So based on averages, I set a spending goal for the whole year, based on a balance between expectation and averages, and budget to that goal each month.  When one of those expensive months come up, hopefully I have enough in the category.  If I DON'T, then I have to cover it, but then the goal is lowered the next month, essentially "paying me back" for having gone over the month prior.

    I know dakinemaui recently opined that it isn't a useful goal because it lowers the goal in subsequent months, ignoring the fact that this might be a higher priority category than previously considered.  I totally think that's valid, and I'm only testing it with certain categories where I think it could be useful.  The monthly spending goal has been pointless for me, even though I'm still testing it in a couple categories.

    As far as the red arrow, just get over it.  Find a new way.  There's a million ways to move money around in the budget, legitimately or in that gray monopoly money area.  Find what works for you.  But after 6 years of YNAB3/4 and 4 years of nYNAB, no red arrow is definitely better. 

    Reply Like 2
  • wow - this is apparently a heated topic

    thanks Habanero Salsa  for so accurately representing my logic in my absence :)

    So it seems like there are two options to do what i want to do - write myself clunky notes, or trial the goal option;  or i shift how I have thought about budgeting for many years :) 

    I get all the arguments about keeping an eye on what my true priorities are etc - and I think not having the red arrow will be good and will bring better awareness, and some of your other arguments will stew
     

    Reply Like 1
    • Green Boat The goal option is often viable for something with a discrete ending date... like Christmas or a vacation. It’s pretty useless for something ongoing. 
       

      As far as work reimbursements, that was much easier for me to work around. I have roommates reimbursements, but it’s the same thing. I use a far future-dated inflow transaction with the amount I’m supposed to be reimbursed, to keep track of the balance. When I’m partially or fully reimbursed, I enter the deposit and adjust the future transaction accordingly. 

      Reply Like
  • Hi Green Boat ! I wanted to address your original question about how to handle overspending, cash or credit. When you do have overspending—regardless of the type—it’s best to use Rule Three to cover it by moving money from a lower priority category. After all, that’s what Rule Three is for!

    And if you can't (or don't), here's a little more on what happens to overspending when the month rolls over.

    The reason we don’t recommend you keep negative red Available amounts is because with cash overspending, you have already spent the money and taken it from a different category. You can choose to let the red amounts stand for a few days since you know you're going to cover it, but it's a good thing to remember and to acknowledge: red in your budget means you’ve spent money that was set aside for other categories.

    YNAB is at its most powerful and useful when it reflects only the dollars you actually have. Your best information comes from looking at your actual spending rather than how accurate your first budgeting guess was.

    For instance, if you regularly budget $500 for groceries but typically spend $600, it doesn't matter that you were wrong about the budgeted amount. The only thing that matters is the decision about whether you should budget $600 moving forward or change your shopping habits to spend less. Those choices are the most important thing to focus on.

    Reply Like 3
      • Green Boat
      • Green_Boat.1
      • 12 days ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Nicole thank you for the reply
      I understand for that type of situation I need to be budgeting more - where I am stuck in terms of understanding the practical steps is when I have budgeted $500 a month for something because on average across the year I spend $500 per month on it, and this month I spent $600, so I want to reduce next month by the $100 so my overall spending on that category doesn't go over. I don't want to permanently take $100 from another category to cover it (although I do get that if no money ever came in again I would have effectively done so, and in some cases I may do so because the priority changed) I want to reflect and cover the variation that happens across one category when my budgeting for the category overall is right
      How do I track all of that? Or is the only way that I cover it this month from another category, and write myself a note then budget extra next month to the category I took from and less from the category that I had to cover?

      Reply Like 1
    • Green Boat I can definitely understand why it might feel strange to cover overspending instead of rolling it over (and then budgeting less the following month).

      You're absolutely right that covering overspending clears out any data about how much you overspent in previous months. There isn't a way to track the movement of money between categories, but your budget still gives you plenty of useful information to inform how you budget in the future. Some folks do use category notes.

      Looking at the Average Budgeted (part of Quick Budget), or how much you had to budget last month (Budgeted Last Month) to cover overspending, actually gives you a much more honest picture—and can be a good place to check.

      Reply Like
  • Habanero Salsa said:
    Can you explain how I can otherwise apply a negative amount into the budgeted amount for next month, without notes?

    Perhaps just general awareness? An August 31 "Clothing" overspend should be fresh in your mind as you're drafting your September budget. When that happens to me, my thought process is something like: "Gee, I just bought a lot of clothes yesterday, I probably won't need to spend as much this month."

    I guess what I'm struggling with here is that you seem perfectly willing to ignore your budget in some circumstances -- i.e. you feel justified in overspending if there's a good sale. So what does reducing your budgeted amount in the following month accomplish, exactly?  What's stopping you from simply ignoring that new (reduced) target and overspending again (and again)?

    At some point you have to reckon with the fact that, when you overspend, the money has to come from somewhere. YNAB is just really strict about things and forces you to reckon with that fact immediately. (The red arrow allowed you to ignore it indefinitely.)

    Reply Like 6
    • bret Well, I buy other things, too, not all of which happens on the last day of the month (which was used as an example to show how silly it can be to think buying $100 worth of clothes with $8 in the category at 11:30 PM on 8/31 is inherently bad while buying $100 worth of clothes with $208 in the category at 12:15 AM on 9/1 is peachy).

      What reducing my budgeted amount in the following month accomplishes, exactly, is keeping on track with long-term spending goals and avoids spending too much over time. As a simple example of a very short “long term” if I budget $200 a month for clothes, then spend $250 in January and adjust my budgeted amount to $150 in February then spend it, I am still on track. If I spend $250 in January, leave my budgeted amount at $200 in February then spend it, I’ve now spent $450 and am off track even if I stay within my $200 a month forever. 

      For the fourth (?) time, I understand that the money has to come from somewhere. For the fourth (?) time, I’m content with covering the overspending in the current month as YNAB hopes I will.  What I’m talking about is not, for the fourth (?) time, the red arrow from YNAB4, but a way of streamlining the adjustments to the affected categories in the next month, so that the allocations go back where I want them, even if other people don’t do it that way. 

      Reply Like 2
      • Green Boat
      • Green_Boat.1
      • 12 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa which is also what I am trying to work out how to achieve
      obviously it is bad if we just mindlessly overspend, but this example is not mindless overspending, and it is not an example of a change of priorities - it is about sticking to those priorities over months
      yes, if we keep overspending every month in the clothing category then we need to budget more, and it is reflecting that our priorities have changed or were unrealistic, but trying to staying on track across months seems like a good thing

      Reply Like
    • Green Boat I agree.
      I don’t think we should conflate lumpy spending with chronic overspending.

      I don’t think we should conflate looking at periods longer than a single month with wanting overspending to roll over forever. 

      If I borrow from AMEX for a month, I want to pay it back. If Clothes borrows from another category — and I view it as borrowing, unless I make an ongoing change to my categories, whether others see it as borrowing or not — I want Clothes to lay it back. And it would be nice if I had a better way than notes for keeping track of that balance. 

      I didn’t know that would be so controversial or be so mistaken for wanting the red arrow. 

      Reply Like 1
      • jenmas
      • jenmas
      • 11 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa You are asking for YNAB to automate aspects of your budgeting and that is exactly the opposite of what YNAB does. Each budgeting decision is set up to be an active decision and the closest you are going to get to automation are the Quick Budget options. If you want to remember something come December 1 about your budget, well that is literally the purpose of having a notes field for the category - to note things about your categories that you want to keep in mind.

      Reply Like
    • jenmas No, I’m not. If you read my earlier response, I said I wanted YNAB to make that information available to me. 

      I wrote, “Then, in the next month, YNAB could indicate somehow that overspending was covered in the previous month and offer the option to adjust the budgeted amount by that previous amount.”

      This is the second time you’ve tried to put words in my mouth and I’m not sure why. 

      Reply Like
      • jenmas
      • jenmas
      • 11 days ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa so why won't the spending by date goal work for you? In January you say I want to spend $2400 by December and then in the quick budget options provides the numbers.

      Reply Like 1
    • jenmas  Because my life isn’t lived in one year increments. That goal will work pretty well, as I said above, if there are discrete dates involved. Christmas, insurance, vacations, stuff like that. 

      Reply Like
      • jenmas
      • jenmas
      • 11 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa then set the goal for the time horizon you want. Doesn't have to be a year. Can be 2 months or 20.

      Reply Like
  • Habanero Salsa said:
    What reducing my budgeted amount in the following month accomplishes, exactly, is keeping on track with long-term spending goals and avoids spending too much over time

    But what's stopping you from overspending the (reduced) budgeted amount in the following month? If you were OK doing it once, why not again? What's different? I'm genuinely trying to understand the mentality here.

    Is there some threshold that you simply don't allow yourself to cross when it comes to overspending? In your example, the overspending was small enough that you could correct it in a single month of reduced spending. But what if you overspend so badly that you'd have to spend $0 for multiple months to bring things back in alignment with your long-term goal? How far in the hole do you allow yourself to get?  $500?  $1000?  Is there even a limit? 

    Assuming you do have some upper limit (and I certainly hope you do!), then consider simply padding your category balance by that amount. E.g. make $1000 your new baseline for "Clothing" instead of $0. That'll keeps you from running afoul of YNAB's strict rules about overspending. Make your normal $200 monthly contributions to clothing. If the balance approaches $0, then you know you need to slow down your spending (or increase your contributions.) If the balance approaches $2000, perhaps it's time to slow down contributions and redirect the excess money elsewhere.

    That's how I handle "lumpy" spending in general (e.g. for car repairs, home maintenance, clothing, etc.)

    Reply Like 1
    • bret If you don’t understand the difference between lumpy overspending within bounds and chronic overspending, I’m not sure how I could explain it to you. But I’ll try: the difference with lumpy spending is that I know there will be upcoming months with lower expenditures which will even out the spending and make it trend toward my long term target, whereas chronic overspending has nothing in sight to offset it. 
       

      So far, there’s been no reason to go beyond a single month, but it wouldn’t have to be limited to a single month. If, for example, I could get a really good deal on half a cow’s worth of beef before the category is fully funded, it might take quite a while to offset that. As long as I can cover the expenditure in the current month, it really wouldn’t have a hard line, but such large expenses would be very rare at this point.

      I’m fine running afoul of YNAB’s strict rules because, for the fifth (?) time, I’m not talking about letting overspending roll over unaddressed. I don’t need a higher default  because that puts too much into Clothing (an example category, by the way) which I don’t need. I have the right amount, it just doesn’t necessarily line up with the dates, so I handle that to bring it in line until it evens out. The same thing can happen with other categories, so overloading them probably isn’t a better approach than wading through notes or changing category names. 

      Reply Like 1
  • Green Boat said:
    this example is not mindless overspending, and it is not an example of a change of priorities - it is about sticking to those priorities over months

     Of course it is a change in priorities. The original level of importance led to budgeting $X, but yet it was important enough later on to spend more than $X. 

    Priorities change. Pretending they don't is why traditional budgets typically fail.

    Green Boat said:
    trying to staying on track across months seems like a good thing

    Understanding when the track needs to change is a better thing. That track is often laid out months before. Is it reasonable to think that estimate -- a.k.a., guess -- was spot on, both for the immediate level of need back then as well as anticipating the level months later?  

    Reply Like 1
    •   dakinemaui Understanding when the track doesn’t need to change just because spending isn’t steady state the best thing. Understanding that the track needs to change might come from constant overspending. If over- and underspending net out to the target, the track doesn’t necessarily  need to change. 

      If I buy a side of beef before the category is fully funded, that isn’t an indication that I am eating more or need more money for groceries (long term) or that the track is wrong. If I constantly— where the definition of constantly depends on the individual— overspend on groceries, I almost certainly need to change tracks. It’s not useful to conflate the occasional with the constant when looking for solutions.  

      Reply Like
      • nolesrule
      • YNAB4 Evangelist
      • nolesrule
      • 11 days ago
      • 3
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa Let's talk about what YNAB actually is. it is a software representation of an envelope budgeting system. In an envelope budget, you put your cash money in envelopes, and then use the money in the envelope for its assigned purpose. So, in this scenario, what happens if you want to spend more money than is in the envelope?

      Yes, I know YNAB allows a category to stay negative through the end of the month, but I'm guessing the primary reason is that the workflow for a forced application of Rule 3 at the time of transaction input would be difficult to implement.

      Reply Like 3
    • nolesrule Well, in a physical envelope scenario, I’d take money from Envelope X and put it in the Beef envelope. I’d keep track of how much I moved and then repay Envelope X with money from the Beef envelope when I could. 
       

      Which is what I want YNAB to simplify for me. 

      Reply Like
      • nolesrule
      • YNAB4 Evangelist
      • nolesrule
      • 11 days ago
      • 1
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa So you mean you'd make a note on the outside of the envelope as a reminder? 🙂

      Reply Like 1
    • nolesrule If I were in the pre-computer era I would. I might even do my math on paper, too. But I have a computer now that should handle things like that for me. 

      Reply Like
  • Habanero Salsa said:
    If over- and underspending net out to the target, the track doesn’t necessarily  need to change. 

     Sure it does. It means that at some point in the past you didn't prefund the category enough to meet your baseline. I'd explain it in terms of sine wave equations, but I don't know if you ever took trigonometry.

    Reply Like
    • nolesrule How’s this for an equation? (250+150) = (200+200)

      Both are on track. 

      Reply Like
      • nolesrule
      • YNAB4 Evangelist
      • nolesrule
      • 11 days ago
      • Reported - view

      Habanero Salsa Not really. It means you didn't prefund your category at some point so that your average spent and your average budgeted are equal. So instead you are spending tomorrow's money.

      Reply Like
    • nolesrule If I cover the extra $50 from money I already have, I’m not spending tomorrow’s money. 

      Reply Like
  • Habanero Salsa said:
    Understanding when the track doesn’t need to change just because spending isn’t steady state is a good thing, too

    Totally agree, and I could have written that very phrase. I keep coming back to the fact that your current priorities are the best guide to allocating that new money. If those dictate Clothing is lower so that New Car can be put back on track, then so be it. Priority and Payback result in the same action.

    However, if it's November and you feel it's important -- translated "higher priority" -- to take advantage of Black Friday sales, then those priorities would dictate Clothing get more than it would under the payback logic (and maybe more than the nominal/average). I mean, if you're planning to take advantage of those sales, too, isn't it better to put that in the actual plan (a.k.a., budget) rather than a low-ball number you're just going to ignore?

    Incidentally, this is why the issue keeps circling back to overspending rather than the "replenishing" aspect. Some other posters are anticipating the consequences in cases where the payback logic falls down. Issues with how you replenish will cascade into issues with overspending in some cases.

    To summarize, using the current priorities will, by definition, always align with your priorities. (Capt. Obvious, I know!) OTOH, payback logic MAY not do the same. Having done it both ways, I know which works best for me.

    Reply Like 1
    • dakinemaui That’s fair enough. And I know which works for me. Unless my categories are repeatedly short, in which case I need to re-evaluate my allocations as a whole, covering blips and replenishing the source category has worked flawlessly for me. 

      Reply Like
  • Habanero Salsa said:
    I don’t need a higher default  because that puts too much into Clothing (an example category, by the way) which I don’t need. I have the right amount, it just doesn’t necessarily line up with the dates

    Sorry, that's not how YNAB works.

    If you want to make a Clothing purchase that exceeds the current category balance, then you don't have the right amount. You do need more.  "It doesn't line up with the dates" is just another way of saying that you're borrowing against the future.

    You've insisted that you're not asking for a red-arrow, just more tools for tracking past spending to help inform your future budgeting (and spending) behavior. I assume you're familiar with YNAB reports. There's also a convenient "Average Spent" and "Spent Last Month" total visible on the budget view when you highlight a category. Are there additional numbers you'd like to see that you think would be helpful? I sometimes wish there was a rolling "Average Spent Last <3/6/12> Months" stat I could see on the budget screen. Maybe a Toolkit feature request?

    But I still feel like "awareness" is central here. In your side-of-beef example, I'm going to be pretty aware of the 500 lbs of beef occupying my deep freezer. I don't need a category note or a spending tracker to remind me that I won't need to buy any more meat this month (or the next), and will factor that into my budget allotments in those months. 

    Reply Like
    • bret I’m not borrowing against the future because I am handling it with current dollars. 

      I’m aware of the extra beef, too. What I’m not necessarily aware of is the exact amount of overspending that needs to be repaid. 

      Reply Like
  • Habanero Salsa said:
    I’ve used YNAB for about a third of my life. I’m familiar with the concept. I simply want to repay the specific category from which I covered overspending from the category that received the extra money. 
    I can force it manually. It’s kind of silly because it doesn’t even affect the current month, but it’s my impression that YNAB doesn’t listen much to user input anymore. Oh well.

    I think they do. But they're only going to do what they think is best for their customers and what enhances their method. The YNAB method here is to make an adjustment and move on. They're not going to add a feature that only a handful of customers are asking for and is not part of their method.

    I will agree that when they do make changes to their software, it's like watching paint dry. It seems to take years. You're welcome to put it in their suggestion box but I'd be very surprised if they ever implemented it. Luckily for you, you can do it your way with a note and a little math.

    Reply Like
  • If I want the money back in a category I add a note to the name. Eg; Christmas (owed 50). I leave the note there till it got the money back. If I’m not bothered I just redistribute (say I bought a book with film money).
     

    I'm aware others disagree with the ‘owed’ method but it works for me.

    Reply Like 4
  • Sorry, it got long, and I stopped reading. But your reply made some sense. What you are looking for actually COULD be a feature request. It's like another goal. A "don't spend more than $xx" goal. So you could set a monthly funding goal of say $100/month but also a yearly spending goal of $1200, so if you spend AND COVER $1200 in clothing by August, the system would tell you that you've already spent the $1200 and not to budget or spend anymore. Like a warning if you try to buy more clothing - "You've already reached your yearly spending limit of $1200, do you want to increase that" kind of thing.

    That makes a lot more sense than the red arrow/not actually covering the overspending.

    Manually, you can adjust the category name and/or leave a note to remind yourself not to add funds, or not to do anymore spending.

    Me, I just set caps on those accounts. Once the clothing budget is at $200 I stop budgeting to it. If I spend $200, I build it back up to $200. If I spend $50 and only have $150, then I build it back up to $200 over time. But I also don't set yearly goals for that kind of spending, and things like clothing are really low priorities and often only funded when I actually need something.

    Reply Like
Like1 Follow
  • 1 Likes
  • 7 days agoLast active
  • 94Replies
  • 620Views
  • 22 Following