suze orman says....

scrabbler1 said:
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).
Click to expand...

The ladies ( spoiled girls is more accurate) need a good spanking instead of monetary reward. Society is doomed if that becomes the norm.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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. :LOL:
 
Evidently, even the investment mavens here listen to her show.

Must say something.

Ha
 
Last edited:
haha said:
Evidently, even the investment mavens here listen to her show.

Must say something.

Ha
Click to expand...

Eh, I watch Cops on occasion. Doesn't mean I am about to start doing meth and run afoul of the law.
 
I was about to create a Suze Orman thread when I saw this one! It was going to have the same tone too.

I am constantly amazed that she wants people to work until age 67. Yes you'll have more money if you do that, but that's not what life is about for many people.

Sometime within the last few days, she had a woman on who was 56, and her husband was 57, and it was their plan to retire when he turned 65. They already had $750,000 (or so) in retirement accounts, NO debt at all including a paid for house (worth ~$190,000 if I remember correctly), and they were putting $1500 away each month into those retirement accounts.

$1500 a month is $18,000 a year. With a paltry 6% return over the next 8 years, their portfolio would be worth $1.3 million dollars. At 4% it would be $1.17. Let's go with that.

He's 65. They take 4% of 1,170,000 and that's $46,800 which is not a ton of money, but they have NO debt at all. AND they get to add Social Security if they want. Assuming he is making $50,000 a year now (which isn't that much), if he retires at age 65, he'll get $21,696 and then a year later if his wife never worked at all, they can get half again that for another $10,848.

So, if he retires at 65 like they want, he'll have $68,496 and then a year later when she turns 65, they can have $79,344, and that was assuming a pretty low income for him (and a low rate of return the next 8 years), so it will likely be more.

Good Grief...if you can't make it on that with a paid for house and no debt, then you've got real problems. She wants him to work 2 more years to age 67. I don't understand this mentality at all. She never accounts for people who want to retire earlier than 67. Why should we let the government decide when we retire? Just because max SS is at age 67 doesn't mean we can't get our houses in order to retire earlier. To me those people had done enough, and if the stock market does well the next 4-5 years, they could potentially retire even earlier.
 
Orman's ego is as big as her teeth are white. She'll never admit being wrong, and therefore preaches this working-to-67-or-later thing without being confused by the facts. That's her schtick and she's sticking to it, individual facts and circumstances be damned.
 
I'm not a Suze fan either, but working to 67 with an investing philosophy like hers makes a lot of sense. This old article shows her money is in real estate, cash & very safe bonds with only 4% in stock. With interest rates & yields down dramatically since the article, I suspect Suze is even more conservative than ever.

IOW her retirement guidance fits with her investing philosophy.

And it appears her ego loves the attention, fame & fortune her "schtick" brings her - why quit, ever?

If I was planning on investing that conservatively before and after retirement, I'd probably have worked until I dropped.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/200...nicipal-bonds-financial-planners-stock-market
 
Last edited:
That's weird as she constantly says you should be 10% in international stocks, implying that other investments are in stocks too (the part that isn't in individual bonds which she also likes).

Midpack said:
I'm not a Suze fan either, but working to 67 with an investing philosophy like hers makes a lot of sense. This old article shows her money is in real estate, cash & very safe bonds with only 4% in stock. With interest rates & yields down dramatically since the article, I suspect Suze is even more conservative than ever.

IOW her retirement guidance fits with her investing philosophy.

And it appears her ego loves the attention, fame & fortune her "schtick" brings her - why quit, ever?

If I was planning on investing that conservatively before and after retirement, I'd probably have worked until I dropped.

Outing Suze Orman's portfolio - MarketWatch
Click to expand...
 
After reading this thread, I see the comment made several times that she is giving her advice to people who are beginners and not as established as many of us. I might agree that her advice is FOR those people, but she dishes the same advice out to just about everyone. There are people who call her show that have twice the assets now in their late 50s than I will have then, and she tells them they need to work until 67. No way am I working that long.
 
LeavingOhio said:
After reading this thread, I see the comment made several times that she is giving her advice to people who are beginners and not as established as many of us. I might agree that her advice is FOR those people, but she dishes the same advice out to just about everyone. There are people who call her show that have twice the assets now in their late 50s than I will have then, and she tells them they need to work until 67. No way am I working that long.
Click to expand...
If you were invested in CDs and munis only, you might have to work to 67.

This forum and generous pensions notwithstanding, few people can retire early (by saving & investing in a reasonable stock/bond portfolio), fewer still can retire at all with just CDs and munis or the like (you'd have to live WAY below your means for a long time)...
 
Last edited:
Midpack said:
If you were invested in CDs and munis only, you might have to work to 67.

This forum notwithstanding, few people can retire early (by saving & investing in a reasonably stock/bond portfolio), fewer still can retire at all with just CDs and munis or the like (you'd have to live WAY below your means for a long time)...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see that some of you have said that, but she always talks about having 10% international stocks (as opposed to Ramey's 25%). Does that mean 10% of 4% in stocks, or 10% of all investments?
 
veremchuka said:
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. :LOL:
Click to expand...

I watched this episode last night, and I thought what she said makes sense. Keep in mind that all the callers have to fill out a complete financial profile in order to get on the show, so there are details that we aren't aware of. That said, a couple in their 60s with $1-2MM in net worth and high monthly expenses (income = 8k/mo, expenses = $8k incl. 2 car leases) needs to be conservative with their finances IMO. Their son can work and pay off his student loans, but they are getting close to retirement and their ability to generate future income is limited. If they don't need the $40k, they can always pass it to their child upon death, but if they need the money they will not be able to get it back if they use it to pay off their son's student loans.

As far as the bond funds, she said that she's not crazy about bonds right now because bond prices are high due to low interest rates. She also said to look at the expense ratio on bond funds, which doesn't seem like horrible advice to me.

While I don't agree with Suze about everything, I don't think she's as bad as some people make her out to be either.
 
Last edited:
Actually she is horrible with investment advice. She said she doesn't like bond funds but like individual bonds. If yields are low, buying individual bonds won't give you more yield without taking additional risk. Moreover, how the hell will most of her viewers know how to pick individual bonds and the commission or spread to buy a tiny sliver of bond will eliminate a chunk of the yield.

She should stick with her savings advice and keep her mouth shut about investing.
 
Probably giving her too much credit, but another thought as to why Suze may seem to encourage everyone to work until age 67. She knows most people won't realistically be able to retire early, and most of her viewing audience would rather hear/think that it's normal to work until 67 or longer. Most people DON'T want to hear "others" can retire early - they want to think they're doing as well as everyone else (who's not doing well). A few of my former co-workers were actually mad that I was able to retire early, one won't speak to me in public he's so angry/presumably jealous. FWIW...
 
Midpack said:
Probably giving her too much credit, but another thought as to why Suze may seem to encourage everyone to work until age 67. She knows most people won't realistically be able to retire early, and most of her viewing audience would rather hear/think that it's normal to work until 67 or longer. Most people DON'T want to hear "others" can retire early - they want to think they're doing as well as everyone else (who's not doing well). A few of my former co-workers were actually mad that I was able to retire early, one won't speak to me in public he's so angry/presumably jealous. FWIW...
Click to expand...

I might agree with you on her 'sensitivity" toward people who cannot afford to retire early except I have heard her say many times "You can't afford that! I can....but you cannot!"

She is just icky.
 
Last edited:
hlfo718 said:
She should stick with her savings advice and keep her mouth shut about investing.
Click to expand...

I agree that her investing advice leaves much to be desired, but then so does Dave Ramsey. I think part of the reason is that they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator within their audience, so they have to make their advice overly simplistic, and they probably cannot dole out specific investment advice due to liability issues.

Could any of us do better if we had to broadcast a weekly TV/radio personal finance show? I cannot begin to imagine the amount of criticism I would receive with the advice that I would provide, so I cannot be too harsh on public PF personalities either. At the very least, they're getting people to think about their finances, and driving a little bit of traffic to sites like this one. :)
 
Last edited:
It may not be a credit to my character, but I kinda enjoy seeing her knock people down a few pegs when they are being stupid. "I reeeeely deserve a new lexus!!!!" When they are drowning in consumer debt.

Yeah, I'm mean...
 
ShortInSeattle said:
It may not be a credit to my character, but I kinda enjoy seeing her knock people down a few pegs when they are being stupid. "I reeeeely deserve a new lexus!!!!" When they are drowning in consumer debt.

Yeah, I'm mean...
Click to expand...

I think that sort of validation is a perfectly reasonable motivation for watching her show.

After all, some of us (including me) make fun of the particular design decisions on HGTV that we don't like, and validate our own decorating choices ("red walls again? Oh puleeeze!" "That chair is so ugly!" :LOL:). So, why not do the same with personal finance choices? :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shotgunner
Suze Orman - You need 20M to retire early
4 5 6
Replies
134
Views
9K
MC Rider
M
Qs Laptop
Watched "Argylle" on Apple TV (Minor Spoilers)
Replies
0
Views
74
Qs Laptop
Qs Laptop
D
Am I working too much?
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Koolau
Koolau
R
Suze Orman SS payments advice
6 7 8
Replies
178
Views
20K
jim584672
J
F
Hi, I am..... FIRED!
2 3
Replies
69
Views
21K
teej1985
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom