suze orman says....

She provides some help to many of those who have not saved for the future. If she can motivate people to take the first step in their financial management then she has done some good. She has her target audience and the people here are just not a part of it.
+1
 
I watched that episode last night and thought it was a good thing I didn't call and ask her if I could retire early. She would have said we don't have enough. Those folks seemed to be in pretty good shape to me.
 
I don't mind introducing people to watch Suze's shows just to scare them into spending money more wisely. I know a lot of people who does not save much and still spend too much. I don't mind Suze in small doses - like medicine which I sometimes have to take but not like vitamin pills which I have to take regularly.
 
I followed that couple's (How am I doing? segment) investments and debts, insurance, pensions, et al and I thought they had done a great job and were in great shape. Orman would tell Trump to work to 67 or 70!

There were 2 things that were bad advise but I can only recall one. She was giving someone advice about where to invest (in the order to fund) but completely skipped telling the person to put money into their Roth. Perhaps they weren't eligible but if that was the case it was not mentioned so how would someone who was trying to follow this "advice" to know? Serious mistakes just like her lousy comments about holding only bonds vs bond funds.

I am seriously questioning why I bother to watch this each week, I'd never watch Dave Ramsey so why am I continuing to watch Snoozy? Suze you are about to be DENIED!
 
Oh, yeah, for a letter grade of how this couple was doing, she gave them a "D- to an F" [:confused:!!!]. I think she said it was based on the life-only pebnsion option they selected. I guess the other smart things this couple did - like accumulating over $1 million -their enitre married life meant nothing...
 
I followed that couple's (How am I doing? segment) investments and debts, insurance, pensions, et al and I thought they had done a great job and were in great shape. Orman would tell Trump to work to 67 or 70!

There were 2 things that were bad advise but I can only recall one. She was giving someone advice about where to invest (in the order to fund) but completely skipped telling the person to put money into their Roth. Perhaps they weren't eligible but if that was the case it was not mentioned so how would someone who was trying to follow this "advice" to know? Serious mistakes just like her lousy comments about holding only bonds vs bond funds.

I am seriously questioning why I bother to watch this each week, I'd never watch Dave Ramsey so why am I continuing to watch Snoozy? Suze you are about to be DENIED!

I don't think Dave's show is on tv anymore. At least I can't find it?
 
I watched that episode last night and thought it was a good thing I didn't call and ask her if I could retire early. She would have said we don't have enough. Those folks seemed to be in pretty good shape to me.

Those cases frustrate the heck out of me. I am going to retire at 50 anyway, so I don't understand why it bothers me. Guess I was just looking for validation that it was going to be "ok" but I can get that here! I will post my own "can I retire?" question when closer to that point. As others pointed out, the key question is "how much are you planning to spend?"
 
It's like seeing a car wreck in slow motion. While we know the outcome will probably not be good, we still can't look away >:D ...

Yeah maybe that's it. I started watching because I like financial information and maybe I'd learn something was my original reason for watching her show but lately it's probably moved into schadenfreude territory. It's amazing to see how screwed up people are! >:D:facepalm:
 
I've started spreading the word, beginning with Suze Orman's Facebook page:

Do you know JoAnn and Tony of Colorado? They're the retired Air Force couple from the 23 April 2011 episode of "It's A Family Affair" who asked Suze Orman "How Am I Doing?" Suze gave them a D-, but they're on track to at least an A-. Please let them know that they can check their numbers at Early-Retirement.org or The-Military-Guide.com. They have enough assets to make their plan work, even with a mortgage. Their military pensions have a cost-of-living-adjustment increase and it sounds like they'll be maxing their Social Security. They also have cheap healthcare and affordable long-term care insurance-- their plan sounds plenty conservative.

If you're on Facebook, please share it with your friends. I'm curious if this will really reach out across six degrees of connection to bring them here or to The-Military-Guide.com.

I think I have a playable copy of the episode (as a ".TiVo" file) and I'll try to add that to the blog along with a post. Of course there may be copyright issues but I don't see any copies on Suze Orman's or CNBC's sites.

Let's see if we can help this couple recover from the "Suze Smackdown"...
 
I followed that couple's (How am I doing? segment) investments and debts, insurance, pensions, et al and I thought they had done a great job and were in great shape. Orman would tell Trump to work to 67 or 70!

Yeah but if the Donald revealed his true financial position would he have more than a $1.99 in the bank? With his history of skirting with bankruptcy he probably does need to work beyond 70.
 
The only good advise that she has ever given is for people to get out of debt. No kidding Sue - brilliant.
 
suze says "yeah, I'm a dumb blonde who gives crappy advice and has her assets in a sub-optimal allocation. Let's compare balance sheets".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
suze says "yeah, I'm a dumb blonde who gives crappy advice and has her assets in a sub-optimal allocation. Let's compare balance sheets".

You sure are smart....

But I sure am Rich !
 

Attachments

  • suze_asweknowher.JPG
    suze_asweknowher.JPG
    12.7 KB · Views: 286
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, yeah, for a letter grade of how this couple was doing, she gave them a "D- to an F" [:confused:!!!]. I think she said it was based on the life-only pebnsion option they selected. I guess the other smart things this couple did - like accumulating over $1 million -their enitre married life meant nothing...

I'll confess I've been Tivo'ing Suze, and she's become a bit of a guilty pleasure. I finally saw that episode the other night, and yeah, she seemed really hung up on the fact that both husband and wife did life-only pensions, rather than survivor benefits.

Another thing I noticed that seemed a bit odd, but Suze didn't pick up on, was the fact that they had a $115K or so mortgage, but then had about $350K sitting around in "emergency" funds, basically doing nothing. I would have thought that she would have told them to use that money to pay off the mortgage.
 
High Wealth does not correspond to High IQ.
When someone asked Warren Buffett what IQ is required to do his job, he said about 120, anything more would be a waste of IQ points.

Suzy, Ramsey, Lucia, Edleman, etc It's 90% salesmanship.

Einstein wasn't rich, neither was Nikola Tesla.

It's all marketing ;-)
TJ

 
... she seemed really hung up on the fact that both husband and wife did life-only pensions, rather than survivor benefits.
If I understand this, their pension plans had an option to take lower pension payments with all or part of the pension being paid to the other when one dies. Is that the meaning? And they chose the higher payments, with no payments to the other when one dies. My wife and I had that choice and decided to take the lower payments with the entire (lowered) amount of the pension going to the other when one dies. However, I don't know that this was our best option, and I don't know how one could decide without knowing the exact amounts involved. Another provision of our own pension plan is that when one dies, the amount of his/her own pension "pops up" to the original higher payment that would have been paid with no survivor benefit. How the COLA is calculated in case of a "pop up", I have no idea.
 
If I understand this, their pension plans had an option to take lower pension payments with all or part of the pension being paid to the other when one dies. Is that the meaning? And they chose the higher payments, with no payments to the other when one dies.
The short version of the military's Survivor Benefit Plan is that the retiree gives up 6.5% of their pension for at least 30 years (until they reach age 70) in order to fund a survivor's annuity of 55% of their pension amount. The survivor's annuity also includes a COLA.

There are other provisions for kids, people with "insurable interests", and lower annuity payments. The nitty-gritty details are here:
Survivor Benefit Plan | Military Retirement & Financial Independence

It just bugs the crap out of Suze Orman to think that they would go uninsured after age 70, counting on only their military pensions and Social Security, and in the foolish belief that any of their $1M in assets would still be there to support them.
 
I'm glad that I chose to go on the 'On The Money' show in 2009 instead of Suze. Carmen gave me a thumbs up but Suze would have suggested that I work doe another 10 years. Suze makes good points about being debt-free and having emergency funds but she is stuck on FRA. I actually wrote her on her D- score she have that 4/23 couple.
 
I was watching her show tonight. (Gee, the world hasn't ended, so far. Yippee! :dance:)
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.)
 
Birdie Num Nums said:
(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.
 
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....
 
Back
Top Bottom