Documentary, "How Suze Orman Scammed The World."

[youbet]

I only watched five or ten minutes but the documentary maker certainly has it in for ol' Suze--it's almost personal for her and it's a one-sided rant.

That's how "reality" documentary producers make money. Remember, he has expenses in his life that need to be paid. It'll be interesting to see who his next target is. Who is the next well known and relatively clean person he can present a jaded point of view about in order to sell his product? It's all about the money.

I'm not really a fan of Orman's, but I find folks like the documentary producer to be the scum of the earth.

 

[Bestwifeever]

That's how "reality" documentary producers make money. Remember, he has expenses in his life that need to be paid. It'll be interesting to see who his next target is. Who is the next well known and relatively clean person he can present a jaded point of view about in order to sell his product? It's all about the money.

I'm not really a fan of Orman's, but I find folks like the documentary producer to be the scum of the earth.

In this case the documentary maker actually worked with Suze as a video producer so she probably has only Suze as her target--and is riding on her coattails in a way. Wonder what she thinks Suze did to her to make her so mad....

 

[brett]

Good for her. If she make a buck so be it. Not from me though. Advice is often worth exactly what you pay for it.

From my perspective she is no different than those other folks trying to make a buck from TV. The medical quacks, televangelists, new age types...you know they whole bunch of them. The game is to separate the gullible from their money. And from what I read, they are all very good and very successful at doing it.

 

[Hermit]

The late DW was a mortgage banker. She always enjoyed working with blue collar folks trying to get into their first home. She worked with some of those people for over two years to help them qualify for a loan. She bought one of Suze Orman's books by the dozen and gave them to her clients. The message was right for folks who had very little financial understanding and something they could use to help them along to a better financial life. I don't think you can get a better testament than that.

 

[athena53]

My biggest beef with him is that he tells people to give to charity as they will get back more (good things happen I guess) later. I just can't see how giving anything away is going to help when you have credit card debt. Just wait till you have your stuff in order before thinking about giving stuff away.

then again I am in the camp of waiting until your dead because you never know what you might need. My wife gives anyway and tells me I am mean.

I'm very wary of the "give and you'll get it back and then some" pitch but I always donated something to charity even when money was tight. It doesn't hurt to be reminded there are others in need and to get a little gratification from being able to help.

 

[youbet]

In this case the documentary maker actually worked with Suze as a video producer so she probably has only Suze as her target--and is riding on her coattails in a way.

I'll wager that if she makes money on this documentary, there will be others to come.

Wonder what she thinks Suze did to her to make her so mad....

Yes! First thing I thought of. Or maybe she is just trying to monetize her experience with Suze.

 

[jazz4cash]

I have never been a fan of Suze but acknowledge that she gets some folks to pay attention to financial matters that wouldn't otherwise. I had no clue about her debit card and goldbug schemes which seem pretty scummy.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Beldar]

I don't think Suze is any worse than Dave Ramsey,

These are just entertainers, not people to take serious financial advice from.

That's my impression too. Charles J. Givens may have fallen into that bucket also, yet he did persuade me to learn about financial "literacy" and to pay attention to my finances. For that I'm grateful.

Maybe if these "entertainers" do the same with some other folks then I guess it's a good thing. But, like others have said, their advice is a little too basic for most of us here.

_B

 

[FreeBear]

I'm very wary of the "give and you'll get it back and then some" pitch but I always donated something to charity even when money was tight. It doesn't hurt to be reminded there are others in need and to get a little gratification from being able to help.

+1 Agreed!

Regarding DR, he visits our church almost yearly. Good message for our church crowd, esp. those who are living well beyond their means.

He can be quite entertaining, especially some of his presentations from a few years ago. The "run from debit" thing really needs to be heard by some folks.

I ended up checking out his "Total Money Makeover", in large part because he can bring up such strong negative reactions on ER.org. The avoiding debt and saving money part takes up most of the book and seemed very reasonable. The investing part was pretty much useless for a DIY index fund investor like myself and others here. He seems to push managed funds and financial advisors without actionable advice to hack through that jungle. No thanks...

 

[jkern]

It was 10 - 12% the last time I listened to him. Also, he makes no allowance for fees, expenses, or inflation whatsoever. He just says, "Save $20/month from age 18 to age 70, and you'll have a million dollars!"

#1, that assumes a steady 12% return for 52 years.

#2, as mentioned, it makes no allowance for fees or expenses.

#3, who wants to work until they're 70?

#4, what's $1MM going to buy in 2068?

The worst part is, I believe it breeds the opposite of what he's trying to accomplish. By using such insanely inflated rates of return, people will listen and think to themselves, "Geez, if $20/month will get me a million, I don't need to start investing yet, I've got plenty of time, I don't need an entire million. I'll spend my money now, and start investing later. I'm sure half a million will be more than enough for me."

Drives me nuts. His "get out of debt" advice is OK, but his investing advice is completely horrible.

I completely agree with you. He always uses a steady 12% ROI for his projections. Absolutely insane. I believe his intention is to show that saving and investing is good.

 

[gindie]

The field of Behavioral Economics explores reasons people make economic decisions that aren't completely rational. You're right that Dave's "snowball method" isn't the most rational if the smallest balance has the lowest interest, but it seems to work for a lot of people. Whatever gets them out of credit card debt makes me happy.

Here's such a study:

The ‘snowball approach’ to debt - Kellogg School of Management

 

[YVRRocketSurgery]

Watch the documentary last night. It did sway me to feel negatively about Orman but not that it matters for me.
Flipping channels, I might stop to watch Orman because her Q&A with the audience is entertaining for a few minutes. But she's too preachy for my taste and a lot of her concepts are pretty simplistic; not to say that simple messaging is not helpful sometimes.

+1 athena53

I couldn't make it past the production intro... so I searched for a summary:

The Dumbest Criticism of Suze Orman I've Ever Seen -- The Motley Fool

"At the end of the day, most readers would probably be better off ignoring the documentary altogether and focusing on Orman's core message: Pay down your debt, spend less than you save, and invest the difference.

While that may seem like a simple formula, it's the only one virtually guaranteed to improve your personal financial situation."

That was kind of a weird article on Motley Fool which interpreted the documentary was blaming Orman for partially causing for the Great Recession. The bigger takeaway from the documentary IMO was the debit card venture.

 

[Original Wally]

I have always considered her to be too "smarmy" - you just feel like you need a shower after listening to her blather. YMMV

 

[Debinnov a]

I used to watch her Saturday weekly show. She always featured someone wanting to retire in the "How am I doing?" segment. It was interesting to see all of the different situations and scenarios; but no matter how much money they had saved, pensions, etc., she ALWAYS told them they must work until 70, when they would take social security. No early retirement for them!

Sent from my KFTHWA using Tapatalk HD

 

[RobbieB]

Work until 70? That's her plan?

Amazing.

I didn't even know she existed until this thread. I guess I'm lucky -

 

[jollystomper]

No financial planner/advisor is going to be perfect. One can fault with something about all of them. In our area Ric Edelman is very popular, he has very good advice to give, but not all is perfect.

IMHO one has to approach these "popular" financial advisors and look at them from a "crowd sourcing" perspective... how much of their advice is basic and consistent? I'd say 95% of folks, if they followed the basics of "LBYM, save, keep your debt down and invest simply", which most of these folks expose, would be better off. Where one has to thread carefully are specific investment recommendations they make. But I understand that, so I can ignore that aspect of their advice.

I recently viewed a Vanguard webinar where they interviewed Jack Bogle. His message also was "just stick to the basics". I don't know, many too many people find the 'basics" too boring, which leaves them more susceptible to things they don't understand but many come wrapped in a nice package...

 

[kcowan]

I liked her comment that her debit card was the "least cost effective card" available. Some honesty?

But are not all the TV pitch people bad? Dr Phil, Dr Oz et al

 

[robnplunder]

One can probably make a similar documentary about 1/2 of the business owner, including Trump. The video is a complete waste of time for the maker and viewer. My 2 cents.

 

[SecretlyFI]

I used to watch her How am I doing segment. I ended up emailing the show about the obvious error in the presentation. She would show "home equity" on the asset side and "mortgage debt" on the liability. As a result she's telling people they have negative net worth and are doing terrible. I never got a response to my email but starting that week it was corrected to show "home value" as the asset. Pretty scary for a presentation whose whole purpose is to evaluate net worth.

 

[mathjak107]

well owing more then you have in assets is still a negative net worth .but that does not mean you are doing terrible .

 

[SecretlyFI]

But that's the point. What you have in assets is the home value not the home equity which is the net. So $500k house on which you owe $300k gives you a positive net amount. She was showing $200 equity as the asset and $300 debt and telling people they were under water on their houses.

 

[RobbieB]

A reason she no longer has her own show?

Doesn't know what she's doing? Unclear on the concept?

Day time TV. It's about whatever.

 

[frayne]

I've actually read a few of her books years ago and think on the whole she doles out fairly decent advice. She has found her niche and is making the most of it. Good for her.

 

[brett]

I have a powerful weapon that use against TV personalities like Suzy Orman, New Age types, Evangelists of various stripes, Oprah, Dr. Phil, Mr Oz etc.

It is the off button. Or in a pinch the change channel option.

Don't really care about her. Others do like and appreciate her so they are welcome to watch and listen. We pass.