suze orman says....

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyvue Agree. I used to watch and enjoy it but the storyline just keeps repeating itself over and over. The only thing that changes is how attractive the "princess" happens to be.

It reminds me of my theory about the popularity of soap operas. I tend to think we (as a society) see some therapeutic value in seeing the suffering of "beautiful" people so we don't feel so bad about our own lives and situations.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 It reminds me of my theory about the popularity of soap operas. I tend to think we (as a society) see some therapeutic value in seeing the suffering of "beautiful" people so we don't feel so bad about our own lives and situations.

But then how do you explain the Jerry Springer Show?

[Andre1969]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver In the same program discussed above, during the 'How Am I Doing" segment she gave the caller an "F" in retirement planning. Although I do not recall all of the details, what I do remember is that the caller was about 54yrs old and her husband was 60. Their goal was for the husband to stop working at 62 while she continued to work. Their combined assests were 1.1 mil including a paid for house and around 700K in investments. No debts. And Suze gave them an "F" saying the both need to work until at least 67 or maybe 70 yrs old.

I just turned on the DVR to re-watch that clip. You're very close...wifey's 53 and husband's 58, and wants to start taking SS at 62 rather than 66. Right now they're bringing in about $5200 per month, but spending about $5500. Suze estimates that at the rate they're going, their investments will be worth about $864,000 in four years. She also estimates that by then, the husband will get about $2000/mo in SS, and the wife will be making $1600/mo, so they have a shortfall of about $1900/mo.

But again, here's a nest egg that will potentially be at $864,000 in four years! A 3% withdrawal rate on that would throw off over $2100 per month.

Oh, this couple did have a $70,000 mortgage on one of their homes, but IMO that's chickenscratch. And once that's paid off, it's going to free up some money.

Honestly, I think these people, at the rate they're going, are gonna be set for life when the husband turns 62.

[veremchuka]

Suze dishes out bad advice every week. She'll tell people to go to a brokerage house like Schwab for equity investments but I never hear her telling people about Vanguard. She's dreadful but like a car wreck I watch each week. I now fast forward through a lot of the show, wasting 20 or 25 minutes isn't as bad as 50.

[Silver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andre1969 I just turned on the DVR to re-watch that clip. You're very close...wifey's 53 and husband's 58, and wants to start taking SS at 62 rather than 66. Right now they're bringing in about $5200 per month, but spending about $5500. Suze estimates that at the rate they're going, their investments will be worth about $864,000 in four years. She also estimates that by then, the husband will get about $2000/mo in SS, and the wife will be making $1600/mo, so they have a shortfall of about $1900/mo. But again, here's a nest egg that will potentially be at $864,000 in four years! A 3% withdrawal rate on that would throw off over $2100 per month. Oh, this couple did have a $70,000 mortgage on one of their homes, but IMO that's chickenscratch. And once that's paid off, it's going to free up some money. Honestly, I think these people, at the rate they're going, are gonna be set for life when the husband turns 62.

Thanks for correcting the details. My point is.......this scenerio deserves an "F"?!?!

Suze Orman's arrogance exceeds her intelligence.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by veremchuka Suze dishes out bad advice every week. She'll tell people to go to a brokerage house like Schwab for equity investments but I never hear her telling people about Vanguard.

I know Vanguard has fandom, loyalty and evangelism that no other financial institution has (with reason), but that doesn't mean using Schwab as an example is "bad advice". It's miles better than suggesting Ameriprise or Merrill or Edward Jones or... deferred variable annuities...

The difference between Schwab and Vanguard (and Fidelity for that matter) is minute compared to the difference between any of these three and the other sharks in the water.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 The difference between Schwab and Vanguard (and Fidelity for that matter) is minute compared to the difference between any of these three and the other sharks in the water.

I wonder if the difference is that Schwab is compensating Suze or handling transactions for her debit card or some other form of "partnership".

[kcowan]

I think most of her advice is sound. I agree that saving an inheritance is doing a disservice to her viewers. I also disagree with taking on the debts of the children. That creates both dependency and entitlement expectations.

OTOH a show run by us posters would be very boring. How many times can you say 4% with Vanguard?!

[scrabbler1]

I watched the first 15 minutes of "Princess" tonight. It was about Laura who spends her boyfriend's money and is threatening to drag him down if she doesn't get her act together. If her B/F were older, he'd be a sugar daddy for putting up with her. I hope for his sake that she is good in bed LOL!

Lucky for me the phone rang so I did not find out how that segment ended. I was on the phone for a while (with the ladyfriend who is out of town) but caught the last 10 minutes of the second segment where the princess flunked and got only $2,000 for her mediocre effort. (I think she should have gotten zippo.)

I've seen enough of "Princess" for about 5 years (if it lasts that long).

[veremchuka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I know Vanguard has fandom, loyalty and evangelism that no other financial institution has (with reason), but that doesn't mean using Schwab as an example is "bad advice". It's miles better than suggesting Ameriprise or Merrill or Edward Jones or... deferred variable annuities... The difference between Schwab and Vanguard (and Fidelity for that matter) is minute compared to the difference between any of these three and the other sharks in the water.

I did not mean to say that Schwab is a bad choice, more my cranky comment about her advice being bad. I know nothing about Schwab. My point was she never mentions Vanguard and I can't recall Fidelity either.

We all know how much she loves bonds but hates bond funds. If I was worth $25M I'd buy bonds vs bond funds too.

I wonder if she'll work to 70, oh no she's already planning to bail in a couple of years.

I too watched that same Princess show, I'd bet you dollars to donuts she is just as big a jerk in bed as with her spending. Sickening, 15 minutes was all I could take of that.

[Mulligan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrabbler1 I watched the first 15 minutes of "Princess" tonight. It was about Laura who spends her boyfriend's money and is threatening to drag him down if she doesn't get her act together. If her B/F were older, he'd be a sugar daddy for putting up with her. I hope for his sake that she is good in bed LOL! Lucky for me the phone rang so I did not find out how that segment ended. I was on the phone for a while (with the ladyfriend who is out of town) but caught the last 10 minutes of the second segment where the princess flunked and got only $2,000 for her mediocre effort. (I think she should have gotten zippo.) I've seen enough of "Princess" for about 5 years (if it lasts that long).

The ladies ( spoiled girls is more accurate) need a good spanking instead of monetary reward. Society is doomed if that becomes the norm.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by veremchuka I wonder if she'll work to 70, oh no she's already planning to bail in a couple of years.

Heh. Do as I say, not as I do. Those in money, fame and power never do that.... do they?

[antmary]

To tell the truth, we don't have "decent" TV, and didn't see the show you all are talking about. We get 3 channels plus PBS. I think, generally, that Suzie Orman is a bit too preachy for my taste. However, I do think that her books are good for newcomers to the financial planning world.

[mathjak107]

so suzie started her show last night defending her 401k loans are taxed 2x bit.

i listened very carefully to her words and you know what? SHE IS CORRECT!

yep ,she is 100% correct .

WHAT YOU SAY?

well lets take a 10k 401k loan as an example.

she is purposely focusing in on the 10k loan being taxed 2x so it sounds awful and you wont borrow from your 401k.

she is correct , it sure is taxed 2x but:.

she is purposely avoiding bringing up at any point that although the 10k gets taxed 2 times we are really looking at at least 20k in income that gets taxed regardless of what you do with it.

that 20k is the income you needed to get 10k in the 401k and to also be able to pay back the loan out of your income.

pulling out the 10k thats never taxed in the loan has the 10k you put back taxed 2x to compensate so eventually that 20k is taxed in full..

its really a wash but sssssshhhhhhhhhhh the audience isnt supposed to know that or ask the question about whether the taxes stay the same.


its funny her show brought that up yesterday as so many must have told her she is wrong through the years . i listened to her very carefully and realized what she was saying left her correct. but she wasnt being up front about the overall effect being a wash, only the part that made her correct.

no one ever asked her the correct question i guess. which is except for taxes on the interest i pay are my taxes any higher at any point?. so i just wrote her and asked her to address the taxes being the same except for the interest you pay being taxed twice .

any bet it never airs?

[veremchuka]

The lunacy never ends does it.

Saturday night in either the "Can I Afford It" or the "How Am I Doing" segment a married woman age 61 with $113k liquid, $625k investments and $527k in retirement was berated to either not pay off her son's $40k student loan debt if it was the "Can I Afford It" segment or to not retire if it was the "How Am I Doing" segment. Sorry I'm forgetting which it was, I think it was the "Can I Afford It" segment. I wrote the numbers down as I was watching it so I know those are correct. I think her numbers are great to either pay off the loan or retire.

Also it was another rant about not owning bond funds but rather buy bonds to another caller. No mention about what type of bonds or the high cost to diversify a bond portfolio of actual bonds or how expensive they are if you were to buy them in the secondary market. Nope, just avoid those nasty funds and get the actual bonds.

I'm surprised she didn't suggest looking at the sun.

[AWeinel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by veremchuka I'm surprised she didn't suggest looking at the sun.

Me thinks she has done way too much of that.

Not only is her advice... i dunno... "weird?", but she, herself, is smarmy.

[haha]

Evidently, even the investment mavens here listen to her show.

Must say something.

Ha

[AWeinel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Evidently, even the investment mavens here listen to her show. Must say something. Ha

Could mean cheap entertainment.

[heeyy_joe]

There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.
Oscar Wilde

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Evidently, even the investment mavens here listen to her show. Must say something. Ha

Eh, I watch Cops on occasion. Doesn't mean I am about to start doing meth and run afoul of the law.