Dave Ramsey Advice

[Andre1969]

I'm sure Dave Ramsey would have a fit about my current situation. I don't have a regular mortgage, but rather an HELOC. Outstanding balance is about $160,000. Interest rate is only 3.5% for the time being, but I know it'll go up...eventually. I only have to pay off the interest each month, but had been rounding up, to an even $500. Of course, that way, it'll never get paid off.

Well, I recently upped my payment to $600 per month, but when I ran the spreadsheet, the results were pretty scary. At $600/mo, it'll get paid off in about 55 years, and that's presuming the interest rate stays at 3.5%!

So, yeah, I think it's time to start ramping that up a bit. To pay it down in 30 years I have to bump up to around $715 per month, and 15 years would be $1143. Again, presuming it stays at 3.5%, which it can't, forever.

I could afford to pay it off, but I figure why? My investments are doing better than that, so why mess with it?

I also try to put as much as I can on the credit cards, but then pay it off in full every month. I used to just use one card that gave me 1% cash back on everything, but now I'm splitting it between a card that gets me 4% back on gasoline purchases, and another card that gets me 2% on everything, but it has to be used to fund a Fidelity account.

[calmloki]

Long ago, about the time we entered the computer age with a 386 processor, we came upon a free program called Zilch. Debt has always been anathema to me and paying down the highest interest debt first just makes sense, but Zilch's graphic depiction of paying either the highest interest or lowest balance debt off and rolling that freed up monthly payment into the next debt was an eye opener for my gal. She became an even more enthusiastic participant and we ended up with a number of free and clear properties. Not so good when looking at return on investment, better as house of cards property investor's empires crumbled around us.

Zilch Standard - Debt Reduction Review and Download,Loan & Mortgage,Business & Finance Software

Clark Howard is fun to watch - and, as Leo mentions, he gave the long-lived razor advice - I incorrectly attributed that to Dave Ramsey in a different thread.

[FUEGO]

Man, this thread is making me want to stop paying extra and start investing those extra mortgage payments in the market... You guys think I should pay off the mortgage or pay the minimum and invest the rest in the market?

[ziggy29]

Chiming late here. In terms of avoiding debt, building an emergency fund and living below your means (including a refreshingly conservative definition of what it means to be able to "afford" something), he is terrific in that regard. I personally don't agree with the idea that one should *always* avoid debt (except for a mortgage) is necessarily always optimal or that debit cards are better than credit cards for those who have the ability to pay it off at the end of the month, but it's a minor nit.

Where Dave falls on his face is on the investment side. Not only does he seem to advocate *all* of one's investments above and beyond the emergency fund to be all in stock mutual funds (nice for someone a couple years from retiring in 2007), but he also touts 12% as a reasonable expectation for stock funds. When he talks about building wealth beyond the emergency fund you never hear him talk about "asset allocation" or "bond funds" or "time horizon" or "risk tolerance" -- all critical factors in determining where to put your investment capital.

So he's one of the best at coaching people to improve their cash flow to start building wealth. But once you build the cash flow to start investing, look somewhere else for advice.

[Leonidas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I personally don't agree with the idea that one should *always* avoid debt (except for a mortgage) is necessarily always optimal or that debit cards are better than credit cards for those who have the ability to pay it off at the end of the month, but it's a minor nit.

Yeah, but for the average person that needs Dave Ramsey's advice - staying away from credit in any form is a darn good idea. Most of them are in way over their heads on cc debt, student loans and mortgages on too much house. Too many of them have not learned their lesson, and if you paid their debt off they would be back in over their heads before you knew it. Telling these people it's okay to take on some debt is like telling the fat ballerina it's okay to have just one cupcake.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonidas Yeah, but for the average person that needs Dave Ramsey's advice - staying away from credit in any form is a darn good idea. Most of them are in way over their heads on cc debt, student loans and mortgages on too much house. Too many of them have not learned their lesson, and if you paid their debt off they would be back in over their heads before you knew it. Telling these people it's okay to take on some debt is like telling the fat ballerina it's okay to have just one cupcake.

Sure, I agree that Dave needs to talk to the "lowest common denominator" on his radio and TV shows, because as soon as someone admits there are exception, *everyone* will think their situation is the exception and it usually isn't. And that can get them in big trouble.

But the audience on this board is not the audience on the radio show. The folks on this board are considerably more financially literate in the average case than the typical listener or caller to his radio show. So in *this* forum I think it's reasonable to accept (or at least entertain the idea) that there can be exceptions to his rules -- providing you have the savvy to have good reason to believe you may be one and providing that you've demonstrated such with responsible money management in the past. For example, I would never advocate charging routine expenses on a credit card and paying it off at the end of the month to someone unless I *knew* they had a significant history of responsible use of credit and not carrying balances. To someone who had recent credit problems and had not convinced me they were "cured" of bad habits with credit, I would say "cash only" all the way.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster What's not to like. debt bad. get out of debt. pay high interest off first. Snowball the debt reduction. Then save like crazy.

I don't think that is what Dave says. He wants people to pay off the lowest balance debt first NOT the highest interest rate. That little difference costs people money.

If he inspires people to get their financial act together then that is a good thing.

But many people accept his advice as gospel without thinking for themselves. He makes idiotic "assumptions" about market performance that make his advice sound obviously right. But when his assumptions are adjusted for the facts his advice is questionable.

For example (to someone who wants to buy a house with 10% down for which they now have the cash) Dave might say something like:

"If you take the money you have and invest it in stocks and it earns 12% a year rather than buy the house then you'll have $XXX to buy a house in 5 years and you can buy the house with less debt."

That statement might be true on based on the literal words but the conclusion is not so obvious if one corrects for his errors and omissions - stocks do not return 12% risk free, the caller pays rent in the meantime, and so forth.

I don't listen to the man. But I've heard enough of his advice on another forum (when people predominantly agree with and support him) to know that he is more a showman than a good financial advisor.

[Katsmeow]

At times Dave does give advice that is a bit more nuanced than you might expect. I recall a question from a guy who had a few million and was asking about buying some lake property (or something about that). He was worried about it and Dave told him to buy it tomorrow...

Another time a woman in debt asked about whether to buy Christmas gifts for family even though in debt. He was fine with modest gifts.

He does not always insist on people paying off debt immediately. In one case, husband was in militaty about to go overseas, wife was pregnant, he strongly suggested maintaining more than the $1k baby emergency fund in that situation.

So, I think that for everything except debt itself he can be nuanced.

What I don't like about him is I see he is sort of a cult of personality sort of thing. That is many of his followers seem to thing you have to treat his views like the gospel. There is no picking and choosing. I have never liked that kind of thing where you are expected to take it 100% no matter the circumstances. I did find it motivating at times to listen to him when I was in debt paydown mode. I even know occasionally go and browse through the questions and answers on his website. But I just can't get into the thought of having to follow what Dave says 100% of the time...

[rayvt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework I don't think that is what Dave says. He wants people to pay off the lowest balance debt first NOT the highest interest rate. That little difference costs people money.

Wrong!!

For somebody who is deeply in debt to several cards & loans, this is the exact right advice.

Doing it this way gives these people a visible sign of progress, which is exactly what they need. People who are overwhelmed by the scads of monthly bills give a sigh of relief when one of them goes away. Paying down the highest bill doesn't give them the concrete evidence that they are making progress. Remember, if they intellectually knew what they were doing (with the debt) they'd not be in that situation in the first place.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayvt Wrong!! For somebody who is deeply in debt to several cards & loans, this is the exact right advice. Doing it this way gives these people a visible sign of progress, which is exactly what they need. People who are overwhelmed by the scads of monthly bills give a sigh of relief when one of them goes away.

It might be good advice to get them psychologically motivated to stick with the plan. But it does cost them money in interest.

[Katsmeow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework It might be good advice to get them psychologically motivated to stick with the plan. But it does cost them money in interest.

Unlike Dave's advice on retirement withdrawal rates (which I see as flat wrong) Dave understand that it costs them money in interest. He gets that. What he would say is that behavior is more important than the math.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katsmeow He does not always insist on people paying off debt immediately. In one case, husband was in militaty about to go overseas, wife was pregnant, he strongly suggested maintaining more than the $1k baby emergency fund in that situation.

This is true. There are times when a caller mentions that the couple is expecting, or that there's a decent chance a layoff is in the family's future, and in those cases, his advice tends to be to pay less on the debt and hoard cash until the uncertainty has passed.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katsmeow Unlike Dave's advice on retirement withdrawal rates (which I see as flat wrong) Dave understand that it costs them money in interest. He gets that. What he would say is that behavior is more important than the math.

That's fine. He's entitled to his opinion. I like math. I do the math and then follow what it tells me is optimum. I've made a career of it and it never fails.

I get the part about behavior. But I think if Dave were responsible he would tell people that it is costing them $XXX extra per year to follow his advice. I computed what $XXX was for a specific piece of advice he gave someone a while back and it was about $600. In other words, following Dave's advice because they did not have the discipline do what is mathematically best cost them $600 a year over several years. If someone wants to do that then it is their choice, but I think they should be made aware of it.

In my opinion he comes across as a preacher or faith healer - wants people to blindly follow him without thinking critically. I prefer the opposite - that people be taught to think for themselves and understand what they are doing so that they can make informed choices for themselves.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayvt Wrong!! For somebody who is deeply in debt to several cards & loans, this is the exact right advice. Doing it this way gives these people a visible sign of progress, which is exactly what they need. People who are overwhelmed by the scads of monthly bills give a sigh of relief when one of them goes away. Paying down the highest bill doesn't give them the concrete evidence that they are making progress. Remember, if they intellectually knew what they were doing (with the debt) they'd not be in that situation in the first place.

Your last sentence is that "lowest common denominator" thing here, and in that you may be right. People of this mindset may need the gratification of a quick payoff to get motivated.

In reality, for the rest of us I think there are several moving parts here.

One moving part is psychology. Some people need the quick high of a payoff to stay motivated. Even if that means paying off a $1000 debt at 5% before a $10,000 debt at 12%, if that keeps people motivated because they *see* progress, it's not a bad thing even if financially suboptimal. It's certainly better than giving up amidst the feeling of futility.

Another moving part is the math. Paying off a $1000 debt at 5% before a $10,000 debt at 12% is not optimal from the standpoint of interest paid. In that sense Dave's usual advice falls short. But I think he knows that and accepts that based on the first point above (and the third point below).

The third (and arguably the most important one IMO) is the cash flow implications. The sooner you pay off a loan, the sooner you get rid of a payment and have that many more dollars per month to throw at the next loan. This, to me, is where the "snowball" has power. If you had five loans to pay off, by the time you paid off the fourth loan you may no longer be paying the $100 minimum monthly payment on the largest loan, but instead paying $1000 per month by channeling the extra cash flow from fewer payments toward larger payments on the last loan.

One last consideration is secured versus unsecured debt. If I have a loan secured by my house or my car, I lose it if I default. If I default on my credit cards, I lose credit rating but I still have a roof over my head and a way to get around. So all else being close to equal I would tend to put a bias toward paying down secured debt.

On balance, I personally prefer a hybrid approach. I might pay off a $2000 loan at 5% before a $10000 loan at 7% for the cash flow reasons I stated above, but I would absolutely attack a $10000 loan at 15% before a $2000 loan at 5%. The snowball works pretty well in most cases, but in the case of extreme differences in interest rate (or repercussions if one defaults), some deviance may be in order.

[NW Landlady]

I think I must be the Suzy & Dave Anti Christ or something. Am I alone here?
Probably!!!

I am glad I never listened to them & used & abused debt to the Max.

I am so bad I even even Zero Downed into my Personal Residence by floating a NO DOC LOAN (remember them?) over a down payment made off a credit card.
All the while churning hundreds of thousands of dollars on credit card teaser rates to spend on my investments.....

Hope I don't offend anyone here.

OK, nuf said.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 The third (and arguably the most important one IMO) is the cash flow implications. The sooner you pay off a loan, the sooner you get rid of a payment and have that many more dollars per month to throw at the next loan. This, to me, is where the "snowball" has power. If you had five loans to pay off, by the time you paid off the fourth loan you may no longer be paying the $100 minimum monthly payment on the largest loan, but instead paying $1000 per month by channeling the extra cash flow from fewer payments toward larger payments on the last loan.

Do the math. If you start out with n loans with various balances and interest rates you can compute a net present value for that set of loans. Paying the minimum on all loans and putting all extra payments on the highest rate loan will pay off the entire set at lowest cost and fastest.

There is a cash flow (and liquidity) argument to be made. But the extra cash flow comes at the price of the extra interest paid. It may be a good deal based on individual circumstances but it is nevertheless, an added cost. That is really my only criticism of DR's advice on loan repayment.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework Do the math. If you start out with n loans with various balances and interest rates you can compute a net present value for that set of loans. Paying the minimum on all loans and putting all extra payments on the highest rate loan will pay off the entire set at lowest cost and fastest.

Um, 'scuse me, but I already DID the math (see my point two above).

It's funny you're implying I don't know the math when I already clearly stated the math, viewed alone in a vacuum, doesn't favor the snowball when the lower balance has a lower interest rate.

Lest you forget, I quote myself:

Quote:

Paying off a $1000 debt at 5% before a $10,000 debt at 12% is not optimal from the standpoint of interest paid. In that sense Dave's usual advice falls short.

How that is not "doing the math" in your world puzzles me.

[rayvt]

Um, the people who are listening to Dave Ramsey have already shown that they are financially non-astute. The are in trouble because they have behavioral problems. Duh!

The financially correct thing to do is pay down the highest interest rate first, yes.
But that doesn't address the behavioral issue. They need to see and feel that they are making progress at getting out of the hole they are in. Whittling down the overall loan balances doesn't give them that feedback. Completely eliminating the accounts one by one does give them that feedback.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayvt Um, the people who are listening to Dave Ramsey have already shown that they are financially non-astute. The are in trouble because they have behavioral problems. Duh! The financially correct thing to do is pay down the highest interest rate first, yes. But that doesn't address the behavioral issue. They need to see and feel that they are making progress at getting out of the hole they are in. Whittling down the overall loan balances doesn't give them that feedback. Completely eliminating the accounts one by one does give them that feedback.

Exactly. AFAIK there isn't a successful alcohol addiction or drug addiction program world that teaches people how drink or smoke dope in moderation and responsibly. Although many people do so. AA and programs like this tell people stop drinking, now and never never ever drink again. When do they drink "they have fallen off the wagon". It seems like an absurd over reaction to tell people know you can't enjoy a drink or two at party, or place a bet, or a smoke joint on a weekend. I have come to realize that folks in the 12 step program know a heck of a lot more about addictive personalities than I do.

Lots of people can borrow money without drowning in debt, but there are plenty of people that simply can't. Dave Ramsey is teaching the 12 step program for credit junkies. In general not a problem for this forum.

Yes, NW Lady you do sound like the Anti Ramsey.
I know plenty of people who have millions in Real Estate and I also know plenty of people who claimed they were worth millions due to their real estate holding who shortly after filed for bankruptcy. That was true even before the most recent housing bubble.

Leverage is the only way a rich man can become broke.

[chinaco]

I do not follow him, but I have listened to his show a couple of times.

12 step program for debt-aholics. Or the basics for people who don't know the basics.

His basic message is financial discipline, LBYM, save, invest. It is fine. It is the lesson one should have learned from Mom and Dad.

Some of his investment advice is fairly generic. Some of it I agree with... some of it I don't agree with...



The message below (in red) is one bit of advice that sets off alarms to me.

IMO - A better message would be to use low cost no-load funds (with a solid reputation and proven track record).



Dave's Investing Philosophy - Investing - daveramsey.com

Quote:

Mutual Funds Dave recommends mutual funds for your employer-sponsored retirement savings and your IRAs. Divide your investments equally between each of these four types of funds: Growth Growth & Income Aggressive Growth International Choose A shares (front end load) and funds that are at least five years old. They should have a solid track record of acceptable returns within their fund category. If your risk tolerance is low, which means you have a shorter time to keep your money invested, put less than 25% in aggressive growth or consider adding a “Balanced” fund to the four types of funds suggested.

He has a page on his web site to capture leads for what he calls ELPs (Endorsed Local Providers).

https://www.daveramsey.com/elp/investing/

One has to wonder how many insurance agents and commissioned financial advisers sales people swim in that pond.


Frequently Asked Questions - Endorsed Local Providers - daveramsey.com

Quote:

Do ELPs pay a fee? Yes. For ELPs, the program is a form of local advertising. It’s a way for them to attract clients who love The Dave Ramsey Show just like they do. We use the fees to fund the large staff and technology required to operate the ELP program.

Wonder why the ELPs love the show?


IMO - There is nothing wrong with seeking financial advise... but I am wary of "Financial Advisers" that make money from commissioned sales.