suze orman says....

[veremchuka]

everyone should now stop thinking about retiring at 60 and shift it to 67!

this is from the genius that hates bond funds and tells people to buy individual bonds. there's some really great advice! too bad we don't her her $25 million+ to be able to do it too! her advice is spotty, sometimes good and sometimes terrible. tonight is another example of her dopey mouth being in gear when the brain is in neutral.

 

[Texas Proud]

Man.... beat me to it...


I do not watch Suzy... but when I deleted one of my DVR programs she popped up... and there was a teaser that you should not think of 60 as the age to retire... so I recorded the rest of her program and watched a bit later... I don't think I will be going back to her...

For one thing... she told someone (the person who wanted to retire at 60) that after her mortgage is paid her expenses will be $1700... and when she retires (in 27 years at 67)... her income will be in the $8K range... and her expenses only $1700... she then said something like 'even if they went back up to $2700, you have a lot of extra income'....


Now, where is inflation in these numbers And if there is none, why would you want to have an extra $5K per MONTH income in retirement if you have to work an extra 7 years to get there

 

[Onward]

"You talkin' to me?"

 

[chinaco]

Merely regurgitates others material... sometimes get it twisted.

But like the weather person on TV... there are certain safe statements. Looks like fair weather to day (10% chance of rain)!


However, there is nothing wrong with buying individual bonds [IMO]. It comes down to what you are attempting to accomplish. But mutual funds are ok too (the low cost variety).

Now if she said high expense bond mutual funds... I would agree 100%.

 

[Arnie]

Thankfully I was not thinking of retiring at 60.

 

[travelover]

Suze and Dave Ramsey are directed toward an audience that can't manage their day to day finances - people with a negative savings rate. Any advice regarding actual long term investments is purely theoretical to the majority of their listeners. In the end they know that they will end up living off Social Security and if they manage to retire with a minimal debt load, they'll eat premium cat food.

 

[afntrn56]

Thankfully I was not thinking of retiring at 60.

Me neither... 55 sounds soooo much better

 

[VaCollector]

OTOH....thanks Susy!!

....the way I see it is she is really helping to insure that SS just might be there for me in 6 years!! Keep 'em workin'....heh....

 

[73ss454]

YOU! are not approved.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Gone4Good]

The few times I've seen Suze she was offering up pretty common sense financial advice to people who could clearly benefit from a little common sense . . . pay down credit card balances, set up an emergency fund, pay yourself first, etc. etc. Although most folks on this board are well beyond the point where they'd learn anything from her, I don't think she's dangerous to the less well informed. That is pretty high praise for a mass-market financial guru.

And even with the comment about delaying retirement, although it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, resetting expectations in the face of a severe set-back is better advice than plowing ahead with a broken plan. The problem with one-size fits all advice is that one size doesn't fit all. But it probably fits more of her viewers than it doesn't.

 

[Danmar]

The few times I've seen Suze she was offering up pretty common sense financial advice to people who could clearly benefit from a little common sense . . . pay down credit card balances, set up an emergency fund, pay yourself first, etc. etc. Although most folks on this board are well beyond the point where they'd learn anything from her, I don't think she's dangerous to the less well informed, which is high praise for a mass-market financial guru.

And even with the comment about delaying retirement, although it certainly doesn't apply to everyone, resetting expectations in the face of a severe set-back is better advice than plowing ahead with a broken plan. The problem with one-size fits all advice is that one size doesn't fit all. But it probably fits more of her viewers than it doesn't.

Agree. There are worse out there-Cramer?

 

[Nords]

Suze and Dave Ramsey are directed toward an audience that can't manage their day to day finances - people with a negative savings rate.

The few times I've seen Suze she was offering up pretty common sense financial advice to people who could clearly benefit from a little common sense . . . pay down credit card balances, set up an emergency fund, pay yourself first, etc. etc. Although most folks on this board are well beyond the point where they'd learn anything from her, I don't think she's dangerous to the less well informed. That is pretty high praise for a mass-market financial guru.

Suze has a lot of traction with young teens, especially girls. Her show is perfect for a parent trying to have a money conversation without sounding like a preacher.

It's kid candy-- Suze is dramatic & snarky, the show is filled with angst & suspense, and it's not rocket science. After a few "Can I Afford It?" segments, our kid could figure out that the supplicants needed to have retirement savings, an emergency fund, no debt, and a plan. Try having that conversation with the average teen and see how quickly the eye-rolling begins. As she got older she was appalled at the consumerism and the debt.

The phrases "Girlfriend", "Can you afford it?", and "You are so DENIED." have entered our household vocabulary and are great shorthand conversations. The show makes a great student-lounge drinking game.

Financially our teen hasn't done very well during the last four months, but the lessons-learned conversations have been a lot shorter because of all the hours she's spent watching Suze rip into people. And if we have to have another one of those conversations, then instead of becoming parental authority figures we can merely invoke Suze as her conscience.

Once our teen gets her financial feet firmly planted, we can start having those conversations about asset allocation and human capital which are light-years beyond Suze's audience.

 

[Nova]

Suze has a lot of traction with young teens, especially girls. Her show is perfect for a parent trying to have a money conversation without sounding like a preacher.

It's kid candy-- Suze is dramatic & snarky, the show is filled with angst & suspense, and it's not rocket science. After a few "Can I Afford It?" segments, our kid could figure out that the supplicants needed to have retirement savings, an emergency fund, no debt, and a plan. Try having that conversation with the average teen and see how quickly the eye-rolling begins. As she got older she was appalled at the consumerism and the debt.

The phrases "Girlfriend", "Can you afford it?", and "You are so DENIED." have entered our household vocabulary and are great shorthand conversations. The show makes a great student-lounge drinking game.

Financially our teen hasn't done very well during the last four months, but the lessons-learned conversations have been a lot shorter because of all the hours she's spent watching Suze rip into people. And if we have to have another one of those conversations, then instead of becoming parental authority figures we can merely invoke Suze as her conscience.

Once our teen gets her financial feet firmly planted, we can start having those conversations about asset allocation and human capital which are light-years beyond Suze's audience.

100% in agreement with Nords. Dave and Suze's advice isn't aimed at people who frequent this forum (at least not many ). Suze is great to introduce the concept of evaluating purchases to teens (you can't afford it, you don't have the money, you are denied, you are SO denied or denied, Denied, DENIED!).

I don't agree with a lot of Suze's advice, but I'm not her target audience. It is surprising how many otherwise intelligent people I know who are clueless when it comes to making good financial decisions.

 

[skyvue]

I watch her show each week and generally like it. But I was floored by her comments this week that people should plan to work to 67! She should be encouraging people to try to retire as soon as the are economically able to!

She consistently gets the "am I ready to retire yet?" question wrong on her show. That is because she think you need to be able to live off the income only of your investment assets. I have no idea why she forces that view onto people but it is overly conservative.

I was actually so mad at this particular show and advice that I may not ever watch again. I wish I could see her in person and call her out on it. Many of the folks on here who are already retired and living the american dream.....should go back to work in her mind!

 

[tmm99]

Her show has a lot of entertainment value IMO. It's interesting to see how people think (or the fact that they don't think) and accumulate so much debt. It is interesting to watch how some women rack up some huge debt while their husbands have no clue! Or marrying someone or ready to marry someone whose FICO store is 200 points lower than her/himself. Or young kids (or young adults) wanting to buy expensive toys while they still live at home, some rent-free. It's like having a glimpse into someone else's private financial life, which I couldn't get in my life otherwise.

I haven't watched this week's show yet though.

 

[brewer12345]

Her advice may or may not be great, but I cannot get past the scary appearance.

 

[haha]

I like her.

I don't follow anyone's advice, and advice is not what I am looking for.

I also do not watch this type TV, but I have seen her in person, and I think she is a very positive social force-and I do mean force. This woman is powerful, yet not intimidating or (to me) annoying. The event I went to was very heavily attended by women of all ages, and she handled their questions with grace and respect, and I believe good information.

Personal finance is quite boring to most people, and if she makes it available to this type person I am all for her. IMO she tends not to be overbearing like so many of the male gurus who address this market segment.

Ha

 

[Texas Proud]

I watch her show each week and generally like it. But I was floored by her comments this week that people should plan to work to 67! She should be encouraging people to try to retire as soon as the are economically able to!

She consistently gets the "am I ready to retire yet?" question wrong on her show. That is because she think you need to be able to live off the income only of your investment assets. I have no idea why she forces that view onto people but it is overly conservative.

I was actually so mad at this particular show and advice that I may not ever watch again. I wish I could see her in person and call her out on it. Many of the folks on here who are already retired and living the american dream.....should go back to work in her mind!

Since I have watched a total of about 15 minutes of her I can only comment about what I saw....

I do not have a problem with her making a statement that 67 should be the time for MOST people to think about retiring.... but the example that was given, the lady had a decent amount of assets... lived cheaply... and if she followed Suze's recommendation would have twice the income she would need when she retired.... to me, that is irresponsible...

Now, I did find it funny that she denied some lady a $50K outdoor furniture set... because she had a 401(k) loan... heck, the little I saw she was way to much in debt anyhow...

 

[Nords]

Her advice may or may not be great, but I cannot get past the scary appearance.

I wonder if she picked that up on Wall Street...

 

[veremchuka]

For one thing... she told someone (the person who wanted to retire at 60) that after her mortgage is paid her expenses will be $1700... and when she retires (in 27 years at 67)... her income will be in the $8K range... and her expenses only $1700... she then said something like 'even if they went back up to $2700, you have a lot of extra income'....


Now, where is inflation in these numbers And if there is none, why would you want to have an extra $5K per MONTH income in retirement if you have to work an extra 7 years to get there

yeah and she was telling this poor woman that she'd have social security to add to her income! imagine expecting to collect ss in another 37 years from today! madness, i often catch her in these types of dopey comments! what really angers me is the ignorant (ignorant means unknowing, not educated about the facts and is different than being stupid) people that she is feeding this bs to. if they are so lost that they seek advice from her in a 90 second or 10 minute tv show segment then they have no clue about the accuracy and validity of her comments. sad really.

 

[travelover]

.......... It's like having a glimpse into someone else's private financial life, which I couldn't get in my life otherwise.............

Heck, that's why I hang out here.

 

[Dawg52]

I can't stand her. Just don't like her delivery, but maybe it works for the ones who need her advice.

 

[LauAnn]

I was watching her last night. I generally enjoy her show. However, I CRINGED and nearly jumped off the sofa every time she mentioned 67 as being when everyone one should retire and that anything prior to that was nonsense.

IMHO, she should be telling people that they should gear their savings/investment strategy to have sufficient funds to retire early at 60. Then the average person might have enough funds to survive when they actually do retire.

I just don't understand where she is coming from on this.

 

[Zero]

Did the current administration offer huge incentives to these on-air gurus to suggest working longer and waiting till 80 to take SS? Seems the airwaves are filled with that advice recently.

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

I don't like Suze because she is a man-hater. Her bias is obvious in her comments.

As far as her advice, it's generally not bad, but is tailored to nobody specific except the masses.