suze orman says....

[ziggy29]

Seems like sometimes Suze wants everybody to die with millions of dollars left in the bank.

And while they are still working, even if they are 70+.

 

[2035]

Suze gave some advice the other day to someone that I didn't agree with, and I was curious as to what everyone here thinks about this situation? It involved a 64 year old woman who wanted to take a $3,000 road trip with her daughter. As I recall, the specifics were something like:
Monthly net income: $1800
Monthly expenses: $3800
Savings/Investments/Retirement: $630K total (can't remember the breakdown though)
Debt: she assumed her daughter's student loans of $54K.

Anyway, Suze denied her because she was spending $2000 per month more than what she was bringing in. The lady tried to argue saying that some months her investments go up, but Suze wouldn't hear it.

But, assuming her portfolio keeps up with inflation, at a burn rate of $2,000 per month, shouldn't that $630,000 portfolio last her about 26 years? That would put her to 90, and she very well might not make it to that age.

FWIW, a 4% withdrawal rate would come out to $25,200, or $2100 per month, on $630K. Personally I think this lady should go for it, take that road trip, and enjoy the time she has. But, I could be missing something?

Seems like sometimes Suze wants everybody to die with millions of dollars left in the bank.

I really hate to agree with Suze, but I do on this one.

 

[skyvue]

Suze gave some advice the other day to someone that I didn't agree with, and I was curious as to what everyone here thinks about this situation? It involved a 64 year old woman who wanted to take a $3,000 road trip with her daughter. As I recall, the specifics were something like:
Monthly net income: $1800
Monthly expenses: $3800
Savings/Investments/Retirement: $630K total (can't remember the breakdown though)
Debt: she assumed her daughter's student loans of $54K.

Anyway, Suze denied her because she was spending $2000 per month more than what she was bringing in. The lady tried to argue saying that some months her investments go up, but Suze wouldn't hear it.

But, assuming her portfolio keeps up with inflation, at a burn rate of $2,000 per month, shouldn't that $630,000 portfolio last her about 26 years? That would put her to 90, and she very well might not make it to that age.

FWIW, a 4% withdrawal rate would come out to $25,200, or $2100 per month, on $630K. Personally I think this lady should go for it, take that road trip, and enjoy the time she has. But, I could be missing something?

Seems like sometimes Suze wants everybody to die with millions of dollars left in the bank.

Her "when can I retire" advice drives me nuts. I saw the show and situation you describe. Suze denied her because she assumes you need to be able live off the "interest and income only" of your investments in retirement and not deplete principal but doesn't oftent come out and state this clearly. If you want to leave your money to your kids I think that is a fine strategy but not something everybody strives for. I know when I calculated my own situation it meant working for 10 more years to be able to not touch my principal. Love my daughter dearly but not enough to work 10 extra years of my life to leave her the whole nest egg. She can have all that is left though!

 

[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.

She had previously lost all credability with me.....so I guess I was watching her show again only to confirm my opinion.

 

[foxfirev5]

I've managed to make this far without Suze's advice and don't plan to start now. I have realized that FIRE is such an alien concept that the media can not even acknowledge its existance anymore.

 

[easysurfer]

Her "when can I retire" advice drives me nuts. I saw the show and situation you describe. Suze denied her because she assumes you need to be able live off the "interest and income only" of your investments in retirement and not deplete principal but doesn't oftent come out and state this clearly. If you want to leave your money to your kids I think that is a fine strategy but not something everybody strives for. I know when I calculated my own situation it meant working for 10 more years to be able to not touch my principal. Love my daughter dearly but not enough to work 10 extra years of my life to leave her the whole nest egg. She can have all that is left though!

Funny how some miss the point that one may not choose to leave all their retirement money to heirs. Isn't that why it's called money for retirement and not money to leave to heirs?

 

[easysurfer]

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.

She had previously lost all credability with me.....so I guess I was watching her show again only to confirm my opinion.

Even if she was right, I don't watch her because of the way that she berates the callers.

As the character Barney Fife from "The Andy Griffth Show" once said, "I'd rather be called skunkface than honey like that."

 

[Nords]

Anyway, Suze denied her because she was spending $2000 per month more than what she was bringing in. The lady tried to argue saying that some months her investments go up, but Suze wouldn't hear it.
Seems like sometimes Suze wants everybody to die with millions of dollars left in the bank.

Her "when can I retire" advice drives me nuts. I saw the show and situation you describe. Suze denied her because she assumes you need to be able live off the "interest and income only" of your investments in retirement and not deplete principal but doesn't oftent come out and state this clearly.

Suze assumes that nobody should ever squander their human capital and should never spend their principal. Work until you're at least age 67, carry lots of life insurance (you never know!) and long-term care insurance (you will need it!), and don't have any fun until you've funded your retirement accounts.

With the audience she panders to, I can see why she'd impose those rules.

Besides, it's her job to stir up controversy. If she had a fair, open, honest, balanced discussion of the issues then nobody would watch her show-- even on nights when her canary yellow outfit has such a strong contrast with her orange spray-tan face and her blindingly white bleached teeth...

 

[ziggy29]

With the audience she panders to, I can see why she'd impose those rules.

Probably so. Ditto for Dave Ramsey, actually. Many people *can* use credit effectively and responsibly, but they are not really his target audience.

 

[Mulligan]

Suze assumes that nobody should ever squander their human capital and should never spend their principal. Work until you're at least age 67, carry lots of life insurance (you never know!) and long-term care insurance (you will need it!), and don't have any fun until you've funded your retirement accounts.

With the audience she panders to, I can see why she'd impose those rules.

Besides, it's her job to stir up controversy. If she had a fair, open, honest, balanced discussion of the issues then nobody would watch her show-- even on nights when her canary yellow outfit has such a strong contrast with her orange spray-tan face and her blindingly white bleached teeth...

If you want to see some real people with money problems, you should watch the show "Prince$$" which is right before Suze saturday night. These girls are clueless about money but since of entitlement is off the charts. Watching them struggle to change their ways with the drill sergeant lady on their case is a hoot.

 

[scrabbler1]

If you want to see some real people with money problems, you should watch the show "Prince$$" which is right before Suze saturday night. These girls are clueless about money but since of entitlement is off the charts. Watching them struggle to change their ways with the drill sergeant lady on their case is a hoot.

Sounds like trainwreck television but "fun and pretty" trainwreck television LOL!

I found this link which has descriptions of upcoming episodes. I am not usually around on Saturday nights but this weekend I will be. Maybe I grab some popcorn and check it out?

News Headlines

 

[Andre1969]

I used to watch "Prince$$", but started getting kinda bored with it. It started getting a bit repetitive. But then, the same can be said about Suze, I guess!

 

[steelyman]

Even if she was right, I don't watch her because of the way that she berates the callers.

As the character Barney Fife from "The Andy Griffth Show" once said, "I'd rather be called skunkface than honey like that."

For sure.

I haven't watched her (intentionally) in many months.

If you do watch her, imagine inviting her over for dinner and having her behave that way!

 

[Mulligan]

I used to watch "Prince$$", but started getting kinda bored with it. It started getting a bit repetitive. But then, the same can be said about Suze, I guess!

I have only seen it the last 2 weeks. Im sure it will get old after awhile. I am still at the "stunned with their stupidity" stage. The one last week who made a $1000 a month, but was spending 11k a month thanks to her exboyfriend who I guess was paying because he thought he still could get her back was unbelievable. The lady was spending $2400 a month on just eating out at fancy restaurants. Needless to say she couldn't be salvaged despite the boyfriend choking off the money supply and did not get the $5k to help pay the bills.

 

[skyvue]

I used to watch "Prince$$", but started getting kinda bored with it. It started getting a bit repetitive. But then, the same can be said about Suze, I guess!

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.

 

[ziggy29]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.