It’s Suze Orman one of the worst

[mickj]

It’s been a while since I’ve been annoyed by her this much:

The 12% annual average rate of return, which would make a Gen Z worker a millionaire before the age of retirement, is a conservative percentage, according to Orman, who estimates you can expect up to a 25% rate of return on your money.


https://apple.news/AbnR-Uj7XQVuYA_oumymxnQ

 

[JBTX]

That may be the worst most irresponsible thing she has ever said. You’d have to be really fortunate to even get 12%.

 

[youbet]

It’s been a while since I’ve been annoyed by her this much:

The 12% annual average rate of return, which would make a Gen Z worker a millionaire before the age of retirement, is a conservative percentage, according to Orman, who estimates you can expect up to a 25% rate of return on your money.


https://apple.news/AbnR-Uj7XQVuYA_oumymxnQ

I can't get to the article because I'm not a subscriber (and don't want to be).

Can you copy and paste her exact words so we can see exactly what she had to say without the "click-bait" tone of the article?

Thanks.

 

[JBTX]

I can't get to the article because I'm not a subscriber (and don't want to be).

Can you copy and paste her exact words so we can see exactly what she had to say without the "click-bait" tone of the article?

Thanks.

12% could be conservative, says Orman
The 12% annual average rate of return, which would make a Gen Z worker a millionaire before the age of retirement, is a conservative percentage, according to Orman, who estimates you can expect up to a 25% rate of return on your money.

 

[Koolau]

My first impression of SO was that she was a smart cookie about financial things. Virtually everything I've seen since that "first impression" has convinced me otherwise. She DOES recommend against consumer debt, so there's that.

Of course, if you throw in "if" and "could" you can say just about anything about gains over time.

Invest $2 in a lotto ticket and you COULD become a billionaire. More likely you'll be hit by lightening (lotto ticket or not!)

 

[youbet]

12% could be conservative, says Orman
The 12% annual average rate of return, which would make a Gen Z worker a millionaire before the age of retirement, is a conservative percentage, according to Orman, who estimates you can expect up to a 25% rate of return on your money.

No. I was looking for what Orman actually said. Not this "click-bait" paraphrasing.

She's outrageous enough, but amplify that with the ignorant and misleading paraphasing of these financial rag writers and it really gets to be a joke.

Any clue as to where her actual words can be found. I'm just curious as to what she actually said and in what context.

 

[youbet]

OK, here's a different interpretation of what she said (from moneywise.com):

The financial guru says you could earn up to a 25% rate of return on your money by making the most of employer matches in tax-friendly retirement savings vehicles like 401(k)s..........

I'm not sure if I agree with this exactly either*, but including employer matches in the 25% would be an important part of it. I'm surprised (well, not really) that Fortune would paraphrase Orman leaving the mention of employer match out. Of course, it enabled them to add a "click-bait" attractiveness to their article, which is all that Fortune is about these days. I'm surprised anyone was reading the trash and brought it here.


*Your earnings based on the employer match would depend of the match formula and the amount you contribute. Could be 25%, or more, or less.

 

[JBTX]

OK, here's a different interpretation of what she said (from moneywise.com):



I'm not sure if I agree with this either, but incluiding employer matches in the 25% would be an important part of it. I'm surprised (well, not really) that Fortune would paraphrase Orman leaving the mention of employer match out. Of course, it enabled them to add a "click-bait" attractiveness to their article, which is all that Fortune is about these days. I'm surprised OP was reading the trash and brought it here.

Well that makes more sense. That’s a pretty glaring omission by Fortune, which proves their writers don’t really know that much about finance.

 

[youbet]

My first impression of SO was that she was a smart cookie about financial things. Virtually everything I've seen since that "first impression" has convinced me otherwise. She DOES recommend against consumer debt, so there's that.

Of course, if you throw in "if" and "could" you can say just about anything about gains over time.

Invest $2 in a lotto ticket and you COULD become a billionaire. More likely you'll be hit by lightening (lotto ticket or not!)

I didn't see anything about lotto tickets in the article. But, it did say she said that starting saving (some amount I can't remember) at 25 yrs old would make you a millionaire by retirement time whereas waiting until 35 years old to start saving the same amount would leave you far short. Hard to fight that concept as it's something we're all aware of.

She also emphasized how profitable employer matches could be.

I'm no Orman fan, but it's hard to find fault with these suggestions of starting early and taking advantage of any employer matches you can get.

What is surprising is that Fortune magazine continues to exist with the crappy, sensationalist writing and editing they've become so famous for. Who would have thought, years ago when Fortune only existed as a paper magazine we'd read at the library, that Fortune would become the click-bait champion that it has? And employ such sleezy writers?

 

[scfr]

"With the employer match, with the Secure Save account, they are getting 12%, 25% return on their money . . ."

She emphasizes the words "employer match."

She is encouraging younger people to save even just a little each month in employer sponsored emergency savings accounts, stressing how even $100 a month can grow.

It's in the Money wise interview previously referenced.

 

[Aerides]

So she's not the worst?

I mean, yeah, if you are putting away 6% of your salary, and getting a 3% match by your employer, that's 50% right there.

The title of the article should tell you this is click bait and stop you in your tracks:
"Gen Z and millennials could retire as millionaires by doing this one simple thing, says renowned financial expert Suze Orman"

 

[Midpack]

I agree some have reacted without hearing the whole story. Not to let Fortune off the hook by any means, but if you read something that’s hard to believe, maybe look into it further before reacting (publicly)? Those kinds of return claims should have prompted further research. There’s more one sided click bait around than ever these days…and way too many people are falsely triggered by it.

I wouldn’t listen to Suze either, but with matching she’s not as far off. While my 401k matched 50% on the first 6% I contributed - IOW if I kicked in $100, they deposited $150 (very common IIRC), DW’s employer matched 6% on 1% she contributed - IOW if she kicked in $100, they deposited $600 (I know that’s not common at all).

 

[Andre1969]

It’s been a while since I’ve been annoyed by her this much:

The 12% annual average rate of return, which would make a Gen Z worker a millionaire before the age of retirement, is a conservative percentage, according to Orman, who estimates you can expect up to a 25% rate of return on your money.


https://apple.news/AbnR-Uj7XQVuYA_oumymxnQ

Looking back on my history, I've only broken 25% in three years. 1999, 2009, and 2019.

I don't remember how good 1999 was in general, but I think I mostly lucked out with timing, dollar cost averaging, and the fact that I had so little invested in the first place, that lucky timing with an additional investment could make a notable difference. I was up 45% that year!

In 2009, I was up close to 45% again. Of course, the aftermath of a recession/serious market did will help you out a lot, if the percentage is all you care about. A Yahoo Finance writer might call it a "great year". I'd call it "almost being made whole again" after everything I lost in 2008.

2019 was similar. The market had tanked a bit at the end of 2018, bottoming out on Christmas Eve, so 2019 started near the bottom of that trough. That year I was up about 27%.

So, I guess Suzy Orman is right when you say you "can" make 25%. In the same vein, I recall an old Saturday Night Live skit where they talk about where monkeys might fly out of. I think I'd bet on the flying monkeys happening before any hopes of a consistent 25% return. Or even 12%, unless you're really lucky/talented.

 

[Andre1969]

In my opinion, counting the company match on your 401k is definitely a common-core math way of calculating the return! My company gives a 4% match. I front-loaded a lot of my 401k investing early in the year, so I'm currently only putting in 10%, which will get me to the $30K limit at the end of the year. So by her reasoning, I'm getting a 40% return right there!

What's next, counting the income tax break into the return, as well?!

 

[GenXguy]

I disagree with Susie. The company match is only when you initially contribute, and it's usually a partial match like 25%. So you get that 25% increase on your investment right away. But for the next 30 years, you're just going to get the market return, so you can't say you're getting an average 25% return, not even close. Also, you have to become fully vested to keep that partial match, which was 10 years at my company. And the match is usually only to a certain percentage of income also, so if you contribute 20%, and the company does the 25% match up to only 6% of your income, you're not even getting the 25% increase the first year, let alone over the longer term. Also, you're probably not even going to get 12% in a nominal return over the long term in market returns, let alone a real return after inflation. Just more misleading click-bait nonsense.

 

[fh2000]

It’s been a while since I’ve been annoyed by her this much:

The 12% annual average rate of return, which would make a Gen Z worker a millionaire before the age of retirement, is a conservative percentage, according to Orman, who estimates you can expect up to a 25% rate of return on your money.


https://apple.news/AbnR-Uj7XQVuYA_oumymxnQ

Dave Ramsey says the same thing: 12%

https://archive.nytimes.com/bucks.b...adjusting for inflation — you’d have $699,733.

My annualized return for the past 20 years is around 6%, far less than they preach. With rule of 72, my asset should triple in 24 years, and I am not too far from that number. You do not need 12% return to retire.

 

[Freedom56]

We had 100% matching on 401K contributions up to 6% of your salary and 100% of any catch-up contributions after the age of 50.

 

[youbet]

Not to let Fortune off the hook by any means, but if you read something that’s hard to believe, maybe look into it further?

Just the fact the article was from Fortune should be a huge tip that it's likely click-bait and a sensationalist paraphrasing!

I'm surprised the article got dragged onto our forum and even endorsed by early posters. But that's how we learn I guess...........

 

[CRLLS]

A quick Excel tells me that 3k savings with a 3K match (or 6k savings alone) over 40 years at 7% growth exceeds 1M not counting inflation. Suzie doesn't need to exaggerate to get 1M.

 

[FloridaJim57]

Here is the sum total of her deep financial advice: Don't go into debt and work till you are 70.

 

[MarieIG]

Here is the sum total of her deep financial advice: Don't go into debt and work till you are 70.

I used to watch her show - and initially did think that I was going to work until 70.

 

[Beldar]

Orman, Ramsey, and a host of others are just Givens copycats.

Besides, I thought she retired to the Caribbean years ago. She must need the attention.

_B

 

[Gumby]

The company match part is pretty darned important. Neither the young wife nor I ever had a company match, and I'm sure that most people still don't.

 

[Midpack]

Orman, Ramsey, and a host of others are just Givens copycats.

Besides, I thought she retired to the Caribbean years ago. She must need the attention.

She did retire to the Caribbean, but the grift goes on autopilot. Surprise, surprise…

https://money.com/suze-orman-interview-retirement-rules/

 

[Badger]

I used to watch her show - and initially did think that I was going to work until 70.

I never watched her show or any others like it. But in my early years I did think that I would have to work until I was 70.
It scared me so much that on our teacher salaries with no match for our 403b and after we paid off the house we started at age 48 saving the equivalent of her salary in our 403b, Roth, and savings accounts. We retired 6-7 years before we hit 70. I wish it could have been much earlier but grateful that those days are past and although still a bit frugal we are now living in High Cotton.

Cheers!