suze orman says....

[veremchuka]

Wow, look what I found. Looks like the what's to like about Suze section is MUCH smaller than the what's not to like about Suze section!

http://www.fundadvice.com/articles/r...r-advice-.html

[Nords]

I put up a blog post on the episode.

If you know JoAnn & Tony of Colorado, I'd love to hear what they've decided to do!

Suze Orman advises a dual-military couple | Military Retirement & Financial Independence

[Birdie Num Nums]

I was watching her show tonight. (Gee, the world hasn't ended, so far. Yippee! )
She has a segment of her show called "How Am I Doing?" (toward a caller's goal of reaching FI retirement). Suze asks the callers in this segment to list their net worth, with all assets and liabilities (usually credit card debt and a mortgage).

Tonight, and in past episodes, I noticed that some folks state that their home is worth $x. However, Orman never asks them how they arrived at that value of their home--which often is a major chunk of their net worth. What sources did they use to determine what their house is worth? Are they being realistic or wishful? Does this include transaction costs should they need to sell today to access the equity?

I'd like to see Suze Orman ask a bit more in this regard. (Notice that at the very beginning of her show tonight, she questioned the wisdom of buying real estate in today's environment.)

[arebelspy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Birdie Num Nums (Notice that at the very beginning of her show tonight, she questioned the wisdom of buying real estate in today's environment.)

That's exactly why I'm buying right now. What was she saying in 05 and 06?

Like Buffett said, be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful.

[mystang52]

I gotta confess...I watched her show last night. This time, as supposed proof of her wisdom regarding retirement age she brought forth: a woman who had no business retiring at age 52. It wasn't her age that was the problem - this woman simply didn't have the assets to do so. She lived in San Francisco (which no doubt is high expense area), still had a mortgage, and had a whopping $200,000 in retirement funds. No wonder that 3 years later she was in serious financial trouble.
But it certainly wasn't a good example for Suze to use. Guess I'll start watching more movies....

[martyb]

duhhh...lol!

[Delawaredave5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mystang52 I gotta confess...I watched her show last night. This time, as supposed proof of her wisdom regarding retirement age she brought forth: a woman who had no business retiring at age 52. It wasn't her age that was the problem - this woman simply didn't have the assets to do so. She lived in San Francisco (which no doubt is high expense area), still had a mortgage, and had a whopping $200,000 in retirement funds. No wonder that 3 years later she was in serious financial trouble. But it certainly wasn't a good example for Suze to use. Guess I'll start watching more movies....

I saw this - bizarre - she burned through $200k of funds and amassed $250k in debt.

She apparently got a law degree while retired (assuming on borrowed funds). She did not pass first attempt at bar exam, and was not sure if she'd try again.

[rescueme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delawaredave5 She apparently got a law degree while retired (assuming on borrowed funds). She did not pass first attempt at bar exam, and was not sure if she'd try again.

Maybe she spent her money at the wrong bar? ...

[mickeyd]

The financial advicie that one can receive by just reading the E-R forum posts is so much better than Suze or Dave or anyone else on the tube.

There are 129 post so far on this thread and we already know the correct answer. Don't we?

[bubba]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mystang52 I gotta confess...I watched her show last night. This time, as supposed proof of her wisdom regarding retirement age she brought forth: a woman who had no business retiring at age 52. It wasn't her age that was the problem - this woman simply didn't have the assets to do so. She lived in San Francisco (which no doubt is high expense area), still had a mortgage, and had a whopping $200,000 in retirement funds. No wonder that 3 years later she was in serious financial trouble. But it certainly wasn't a good example for Suze to use. Guess I'll start watching more movies....

I watched that same program, and wondered at the sanity of someone retiring at 52 with a mortgage and $200K in retirement funds. Then, she said she went to law school on evidently borrowed funds (good grief). If I remember correctly she said she hadn't tried the bar again because she was so "burned out".

[brett]

I have seen her once or twice.

Like most of what I see on television it seemed to me that there was a good deal of sizzle but not enough steak.

I agree, this is about entertainment and self awareness more than it is about finance. She reminded me of one of those send in your money for some trashy trinket televison evangalists (or just send in your money)...then I turned off the sound (try it sometimes and just watch the presenter's body language/style) and she reminded me even more of one of those people.

[Coolius]

Like all financial advisory shows, one has to separate the wheat from the chaff - and for those on this forum, to discern what applies to us versus the average person who calls into her show.

I always find it distressing to talk to people who have little or no knowledge of their finances, much less how to manage or optimize their returns. Many of them are only concerned about the amount of the monthly payment, as opposed to the total amount they wind up paying ( mostly for cars and homes ).

Some even refuse to contribute to their 401K despite matching funds from their employer, saying that they needed the money now, not later.

Oh yes, Suze's shows are for those struggling with debt and insufficient income, little or no ability to manage whatever they have, compounded with a Living Above Your Means lifestyle ( LAYM ).

[veremchuka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubba I watched that same program, and wondered at the sanity of someone retiring at 52 with a mortgage and $200K in retirement funds. Then, she said she went to law school on evidently borrowed funds (good grief). If I remember correctly she said she hadn't tried the bar again because she was so "burned out".

I watched the show this morning as I recorded it last night. I was going to comment on this genius who retired at 52 with a whopping $200k but I see it's already being discussed. Well now we know just who Snoozey is speaking to when she whines on about not retiring until 67 or 70! Maybe her advice on that is spot on... for people like this woman anyway!

[Birdie Num Nums]

Quote:

Originally Posted by veremchuka I watched the show this morning as I recorded it last night. I was going to comment on this genius who retired at 52 with a whopping $200k but I see it's already being discussed. Well now we know just who Snoozey is speaking to when she whines on about not retiring until 67 or 70! Maybe her advice on that is spot on... for people like this woman anyway!

Maybe she thought her $30k annual pension plus her savings (plus, is she getting any retiree health insurance benefits?) would be enough to see her through, at least until any future SS benefits kick in to supplement her $2500 monthly pension. She is "burned out" after all.

[obgyn65]

I am not sure why there seems to be some animosity against Suze Orman on this board. Her explanations are clear to people (like me) who are not investment / finance experts.

[steelyman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by obgyn65 I am not sure why there seems to be some animosity against Suze Orman on this board. Her explanations are clear to people (like me) who are not investment / finance experts.

It's probably because she advocates against early retirement - which is why I think we are all here. She'd have me working for another 14-17 years, and that is not appetizing to me.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by obgyn65 I am not sure why there seems to be some animosity against Suze Orman on this board. Her explanations are clear to people (like me) who are not investment / finance experts.

The advice that she gave to Tony & JoAnn, the dual-military couple in Colorado discussed around post #91, is clearly wrong.

Suze Orman advises a dual-military couple | Military Retirement & Financial Independence

And, frankly, she was pretty much a jerk about it too.

[mystang52]

As others have mentioned, Suze Orman's basic advice might serve a purpose for some people. But my impression of her is that she is way too full of herself. I reignited this thread not so much to criticze the woman who retired, and shouldn't have. Rather, this woman was Suze's supposed example of why people need to work until age 67 before retiring. Orman gave no explanation, no qualifying comments, etc.

[skyvue]

I was perplexed why she decided to use this woman as "an example to us all" like we are children. Of course "she" made a mistake by retiring when she did. Anybody with any bit of commone sense could have known this. She didn't really retire early..she simply quit her job because she hated it so bad. She had no plan or pray of making it on the assets she had.

As others have mentioned, the points to argue with Suze would be the 3 or 4 other couples I have watched call in with well over a million in assets and no debt, pensions, etc.. that she told to keep working.

[rescueme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by steelyman It's probably because she advocates against early retirement - which is why I think we are all here. She'd have me working for another 14-17 years, and that is not appetizing to me.

She is not the only one who suggests you "work till you drop", at age 70.

Here's a recent article that makes the same argument (however, I'm still not buying the idea ):

T. Rowe Price makes an argument for working to age 70 - Chicago Tribune