Suze in Trouble.......

[Orchidflower]

Listen, if I knew I could get a gazillion dollar business by sleeping with someone I would do it, too (we all have our price), but MY point was that she WASN'T a financial advisor of any real substance. Her publicist/girlfriend annointed her a financial advisor as a gimmick. Working for Merrill Lynch does not a financial advisor make. Did you miss that point, fellas?
As for her sexuality? Who cares if she's gay or not. That is not the point at all. It just so easily could have been some guy she met who annointed her a financial analyst.
Orman to me is just another opportunist who had the sense to grab onto an idea and run with it. It made her extremely wealthy, but for me to take her advice seriously...no. Sorry. She seems to just use the common sense we all should have (but often don't). I see nothing incredibly wonderful about her advice at all.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orchidflower Orman to me is just another opportunist who had the sense to grab onto an idea and run with it. It made her extremely wealthy, but for me to take her advice seriously...no. Sorry. She seems to just use the common sense we all should have (but often don't). I see nothing incredibly wonderful about her advice at all.

I think people who are reasonably well-versed in investing and financial planning have no reason to see much "wonderful" about her advice.

In many ways she's like Dave Ramsey in that both generally are talking to the "lowest common denominator" when it comes to money management, and they often have to be spoken to in "absolutes" which make little sense for someone who's good with their money. The last thing they want to do is admit there are exceptions, lest all the "lowest common denominator" assume they are one when they probably aren't.

Ramsey's target audience may be those people with a history of problems with debt. Just as you'd tell an alcoholic not to even have one drink because they have trouble handling it, you tell a "debtaholic" to not any more debt or credit cards *at all*.

To someone more discerning and more advanced in money skills, you might say "why NOT charge regular expenses on a 2% cash back credit card if I can easily pay it off this month?"

But you've just identified yourself as NOT a part of the target audience and so, in a manner consistent with speaking to the target audience, he waves his hand and makes excuses about how it's never, never, *never* a good idea. I suspect many of us who have successfully used cash back and rewards credit cards responsibly for years would disagree, just as someone who isn't an alcoholic wouldn't see a need to NEVER have a drink or two.

So it is with Orman. Her advice tends to be simplistic, one-size-fits-all, and sometimes too idealistic. (You can usually tell when they use words like "always" and "never" in their advice.) Most of us on this board are beyond that stage in our understanding of financial planning. But for someone clueless about cash, there's actually some useful stuff in there.

[Orchidflower]

I swim with a guy who worships Orman's advice. He's Jewish and she's Jewish, and this seems to be a big draw for him, also. However, this guy at 56 has never worked a job it seems as his parents seems to have cared for him all his life (Daddy made and invested alot it seems); and has no clue about money whatsoever as he seems to think that it isn't at all unusual to have a million dollars, which it isn't everyday or that easily made when you start with zip. This guy isn't handicapped I don't think...just babied and somewhat weird.
If Orman is looking for this kind of watcher then she's found her target audience in him: he has absolutely no real world common sense at all. For example, when he talked to me about leasing a car, and I said it was foolish if you could buy one, his comment to me was "that's what Suze Orman says." Well, duh. No common sense.
She gives primary level advice to me, and not worth the time to spend listening to her.

[mickeyd]

The few times that I have caught Suze recently and viewed the "can I afford..." segment I though it to be staged~

"Suze I have $2000 in an IRA, make $28,000 annually, 45 years old, and want to spend $20,000 on a new Harley. Can I afford it?"

[Orchidflower]

That pretty much sums up Suze Orman to me.

[DangerMouse]

I'm not sure why Suze Orman bothers people so much. No-one has a gun to our heads to make us watch her on TV or read one of her books, so what is the issue? If you don't like what she has to say ignore her. Obviously her advice is directed at a certain portion of the population, and like Dave Ramsey it will turn on the light bulb for some of those who do pay attention.

I see a similar situation on a woman's board I am a member of. So many of the members are rubbing their hands with glee because the marriage of Jon&Kate+8 is in trouble. Their issue is they don't agree with her parenting advice. Well it's really simple don't watch it.

As to Suze's sexuality and who did what for her, who cares? Is it relevant to the advice she gives? As to her giving bad advice, I don't follow her, from what I have seen nothing she says is too outrageous.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DangerMouse Obviously her advice is directed at a certain portion of the population, and like Dave Ramsey it will turn on the light bulb for some of those who do pay attention.

Yep. As I said before, Orman and Ramsey primarily target a specific audience, the vast majority of which are considerably less financially literate than most of us here. When we listen to their advice, we'd do well to keep that in mind. For us, some of it seems simplistic or contrary to a savvy strategy. For them, it may be a kick in the butt they need.

Their intended audiences don't need to "fine tune" a financial plan with a few adjustments to asset allocation, withdrawal rate or tax strategy. They need a broad based kick in the butt, they need MAJOR financial and lifestyle adjustments, and even it's something as simplistic as "avoid debt like the plague" and "don't spend more than you earn", there are a lot of people who need this kick in the pants to get them pointed in the right general direction even as it seems like "wow, duh" to us. Once they *are* pointed in the right direction and they want to learn more, *then* they can start arguing the "small stuff" we cover here from time to time.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Yep. As I said before, Orman and Ramsey primarily target a specific audience, the vast majority of which are considerably less financially literate than most of us here.

I wonder who lost most in the last 18 months? The average hotshot on this forum, or old dumb Suze? She would have to have really messed up her munis to do any worse than I did.

Ha

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I wonder who lost most in the last 18 months? The average hotshot on this forum, or old dumb Suze? She would have to have really messed up her munis to do any worse than I did.

A fair point, but most of us are investing for 18 *years* or more, not 18 months. If a mostly-invested portfolio doesn't beat munis for the next 18 years given the flatline we've had for the last 12 years, we're so screwed that my asset allocation would likely be the least of my concerns.

Also, one truism of money management is that there's no need to take a lot of market risk if you don't need to. Suze doesn't. Most average middle-class people whose 401K represent their best and only chance to retire at a reasonable age do. If I had Orman's wealth, you know what my AA to stocks would be? Probably zero or close to it.

Comparing what Suze does and what many middle-class small investors need to do is like an apple and an orange. And don't get me started on Dave Ramsey and his claims of 12% returns on stock funds...

[Notmuchlonger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 A fair point, but most of us are investing for 18 *years* or more, not 18 months. If a mostly-invested portfolio doesn't beat munis for the next 18 years given the flatline we've had for the last 12 years, we're so screwed that my asset allocation would likely be the least of my concerns. Also, one truism of money management is that there's no need to take a lot of market risk if you don't need to. Suze doesn't. Most average middle-class people whose 401K represent their best and only chance to retire at a reasonable age do. If I had Orman's wealth, you know what my AA to stocks would be? Probably zero or close to it. Comparing what Suze does and what many middle-class small investors need to do is like an apple and an orange. And don't get me started on Dave Ramsey and his claims of 12% returns on stock funds...

Yeah I bet she doesn't sweat 4% withdraw rates..

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Quote:

I swim with a guy who worships Orman's advice. He's Jewish and she's Jewish, and this seems to be a big draw for him, also.

Sounds like a mark for Madoff.

[dshibb]

"I wonder who lost most in the last 18 months? The average hotshot on this forum, or old dumb Suze? She would have to have really messed up her munis to do any worse than I did."
Even a blind mouse finds an acorn once in a while. And if she's holding them long term she's an idiot, and she'll take an a$$ whopping a couple years from now. Keep in mind that we are talking about a woman that suggested a high yielding dividend mutual fund to her audience. You want to talk about stupid there you go.