Suze Orman

What's up with her crazy, monster sweater collars and giant coats? Is it to distract from the fact that she gets paid millions of bucks to tell people common sense financial advice?

I just saw her on CNBC telling us to pay our credit cards on time to avoid hits on our credit scores. Really? You'd think someone watching CNBC would know that.


You go, Girlfriend! :confused:

dingo, common sense (from wikipedia): One meaning of the term common sense (or as an adjective, commonsense/common-sense or as an adverb, commonsensical) on a strict construction of the term, is what people in common would agree; that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding. Some use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what is believed to be knowledge held by people "in common". The knowledge and experience most people have, or are believed to have by the person using the term.


as for Suze Orman and general financial issues, i think this is more apt (also from wikipedia): Common sense is sometimes regarded as an impediment to abstract and even logical thinking. This is especially the case in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with provably correct or experimentally verified results. A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

if suze's common sense (and dave ramsey and other self-purported gurus of financial common sense) then riddle me this batman: why are only 10-12% of American's financially successful when they retire? why do the others rely on government, family, and charities to survive?

i posit it is because too many believe in "common sense" fallacies that don't stand up to math and human behavioural precepts.

this is why financial planners are the 3d fastest growing profession in America. it is why fianancial advisors make in the top 2% of income in the country. it is exactly because these professionals must teach the "common" masses not to follow the lead lemming in the pack.

of course, suze makes more than i do, but she does it by appealing to the "feelings" of the lemmings - and we all like to hear that we are doing things right - even if we know we are not.

1MO

"then riddle me this batman: why are only 10-12% of American's financially successful when they retire? why do the others rely on government, family, and charities to survive?"

Good question, 1MO. Probably because people do not know what they are doing when it comes to finances. Again, Suze, Ramsey, Carlton Sheets and their ilk, are not exclusively making people become more financially aware. Those individuals making the first steps by trying to better their financial situation (even if it means watching Suze on TV) are on their way to that 10-12% (or higher). Those self-help gurus are more successful in marketing themselves than giving the best advice. Heck, Robert Kiyosaki (Rich Dad, Poor Dad) stated that mutual funds were a bad investment because their high loads and fees will eat all of your capital! He must have been jipped by First Command!

Financial planners are growing because the number of people trying to better themselves (as well as their available capital and wages) are growing, not because financial planners are such an elite group.

Successful investing is almost becoming a new trend, and a good one. People are starting to realize that being poor isn't hip. Living off Social Security and pinto beans is not fun. The baby boomers learned from their parents' generation as GenX is learning as their parents retire.

IMHO financial planners a growing as a direct result of the elimination of defined pension plans and concern over social security. People have to make decisions now that our predecessors generally did not have to be concerned about. It would be nice to think that the profession is growing based on superior results. I think supply and demand is the more likely answer.

20 years ago there were very few people making their living in IT security. The major players had these specialists because they had the complexity and need for this type of service. Today network security is one of the most in demand, highly compensated positions available. Is that because the security guys that are out there are so good? Nope. It’s because the industry changed and now demand is high. Is your security guru good? Hard to say unless you have been hacked. It could be he is good. It could be you have just been fortunate.

FWIW I think most of the GENERAL information Suze gives is excellent. Sure it’s not specific. What’s the alternative? Take all the financial programs off the air, ban the financial magazines, and shut down these boards.

My 2 cents...

I think the reason some people, whether they're in the industry or not, dislike and ridicule Suze Orman is because she often does speak in absolutes. And by speaking in absolutes, she runs the risk of leading her viewers, who are often novice or beginner investors, or those who truly are lost financially, down the wrong path with the notion that it is the ONLY path.

For example, she has on more than one occasion intructed viewers to never buy load mutual funds. The problem here is, she doesn't really suggest an alternative to the viewer, other than to say they should buy NO-load funds. Brilliant. It's also fairly safe to say that when Suze was employed by Merrill Lynch, she probably wasn't as critical of commissions as she is now. It becomes evident to the educated viewer or a industry member that she molds her advice to make it fashionable for the particular forum she currently has, and doesn't exactly make the viewer aware that different views actually exist, and that they should in fact explore them.

To be honest, I was just trying to slam her style of clothing. I have never seen collars like that (and she wears them often).

The one time I went to her website (www.suzeorman.com) all it contained was Suze modeling leather coats and trying to sell her books. Nothing more. Shameless marketing ploy.

Good points have been made on this thread, subsequently.

Not only that, Dingobisuit, but her eyes freak me out. :eek:

I'm a little more bothered by her whiny,nasalie voice - and calling every female "girlfriend".

Dingo, i am going to slightly disagree with a premise stated by you and others (big surprise, right???).

i totally disagree that those simply watching suze or listening to dave "are on their way to that 10-12% of higher".

any professional in this business will tell you (if they are being honest) is that the most value they bring to a client isnt any particular investment or insurance product. rather it is helping the client make AND STICK WITH smart decisions. ergo, having knowledge is one thing while acting on knowledge is entirely another.

combine this with the fact that self-help gurus are (and i agree with Sadale here) giving such generalized and "absolute" advice is counterproductive to the results that you imply. ie. watching suze orman is bad enough. following her advice is worse than that. or, stated my way, you are MORE likely to be poor by watching her show than you would be if not. so as you can see, i think your point about them watching and therefor they have a better opportunity for success is entirely false.

that said, of course, i am sure SOME people get motivated and take action so SOME people do end up better - in spite of her (et al).

guess what, here comes another disagreement: "successful investing is almost becoming a new trend". says WHO? lets see, the Health and Human Services and the SS Administration report that over the last 40 years the increase of people making over $60K per year at age 65 and beyond (indexed to inflation) has only risen 2%!!! how is that success?!?!?

ok, so you say - "that was then, but people are doing better today and you will see this when THEY reach retirement." ahhh, Grasshopper - Dalbar reports that the average investor TODAY earns 1/4 of market returns. this sure doesnt imply to me that things are looking up.

and since you know i think i know everything (if you dont know this, then be aware - i do!!!), i even suggest that the reason for such POOR individual performance by investors TODAY is BECAUSE of the "solution" you reference. there is so much information available to people today on the TV, Radio, and the Almighty Internet that they vapor lock. their intellectual engines seize. they have so much information - all of which is conflicting - that they just can't act! and woe be to those who do act - because they are the ones who are MOST likely to suffer. because it is they who will hear the "latest and greatest" and make changes that kill them in the long run.

for all you do it yourselfers who have been tricked, mocked, or bamboozeled into thinking professionals are out to get you - here is your one chance at success (from an advisor no less): sock all of your money into indexed funds across several indexes. put it in by payroll deduction. each month or quarter when you get your statements - BURN THEM UNOPENED. dont open your first one till the week you retire. then hire a professional to unscrew the distribution issues. finally, don't die or become disabled, or need professional nursing care until after you retire.

now, there is some $ROCKING$ financial advice and i didnt charge anyone twenty bucks for a book to get it.

my sole contribution to the betterment of humanity - no need to thank me!

1MO

1MO,

Quote 1: "this is why financial planners are the 3d fastest growing profession in America. it is why fianancial advisors make in the top 2% of income in the country. it is exactly because these professionals must teach the "common" masses not to follow the lead lemming in the pack."

Quote 2: "guess what, here comes another disagreement: "successful investing is almost becoming a new trend". says WHO? lets see, the Health and Human Services and the SS Administration report that over the last 40 years the increase of people making over $60K per year at age 65 and beyond (indexed to inflation) has only risen 2%!!! how is that success?!?!? "

and: "Dalbar reports that the average investor TODAY earns 1/4 of market returns. this sure doesnt imply to me that things are looking up."

Aren't Quotes 1 & 2 a little contadictory to each other? Basically, we have more advisors today, yet people are doing worse. Either, advisors are eating all the profits and/or they have lower-than-average advice. I am only going off your quotes, mind you.

i can see where you might think there is a contradiction (and i applaud your ability to see shadings and read between the lines).

i "believe" that the reason we are the third fastest growing profession is exactly because of the symptoms i outlined. if you get contradictory information from the TV, radio, and internet - to whom can you turn??? to your father in law - yikes! to your pastor - "those things that are to Ceasar give to Ceasar; to those things that are God give unto Him" (paraphrase).

if you really think about it, what advisors MOSTLY provide to their clients is education and discipline. we have paid educators for centuries so we could get this from them. you just have to choose whether you trust the ones from Berkley or from St. Martin's.

also, just because we are the fastest growing 'today' doesnt mean we have made the mark as to our influence just yet. remember, most of our populace has perceived financial professionals to be "only for the rich" and so average investors didnt seek out professionals. using a professional is amazingly cheap and on top of this it should more than pay for itself. this is becoming more well known and spurs the growth in the industry. also (since i love numbers), if advisors had all of their clients making 200% market returns and all the DIYers still only made 25% of market returns - on the aggregate it might only improve the AVERAGE to 30% of market returns. remember in the law of large numbers, averages may not be directly affected.

ie. we just went to 300 million in our country. the increase of "self sufficient" people with those numbers would be an additional 6 million this year (subtracting people who reached mortality). that is a pretty significant impact. but watch the numbers and stats - they can be misleading.

thanks for the question - i think it was great! hope this illustrates my point better. lastly, thanks for being kind and not getting onto me for my attitude in that last post.

1MO

To be honest, I was just trying to slam her style of clothing. I have never seen collars like that (and she wears them often).

Elvis? :rolleyes:

1MO,

If we agreed on everything, these boards would be only spam and threads consisting of only 2 posts (1 question & 1 answer). :(

I do think financial advisors are important, just not for everyone. I myself have suggested to several posters to seek professional investment advice instead of seeking advice on these boards.

By the way, I learned about rollover IRA accounts from watching Suze Orman.

I still don't like her collars! :D

Dingo, i have to disagree. i am sure we could have one thread where there is bazillions of posts. for example, i don't like her collars either.

1MO

There you have it!

Next week, let's have a Jim Cramer thread. I bet it will beat the Fidelity Destiny II thread in the long run.

Okay, maybe not! :eek:

I'll agree with 1MO on just about everything he posted... the primary benefits, the overarching success factors that a financial planner brings to the relationship - are a long-term approach, comprehensive understanding of the situation, and discipline to carry out the plans.

This is not to discount some of the information that is presented by the radio gurus - for folks without the insight to utilize a financial planner, quite often there is some good information and a semblance of structure presented by these folks. Dave and Bob seem to have an uncanny hold on their audiences, many of which have followed the program(s) for years, and I suspect the same is true for Suze (although I can't bear listening to her for long enough to find out). Some DIY-ers take the info from these folks, then ask questions here at Kip's, read some books, etc., and do okay for themselves, even great in some cases.

But the overwhelming majority of folks do poorly in the DIY world, precisely because they lack a long-term approach, comprehensive understanding of the situation, and discipline to carry out the plans.

Does that sound familiar?

Speaking of security I think mine has been breached. I had my DYI book almost finished and it appears 1MO hacked into my computer and stole it.

sock all of your money into indexed funds across several indexes. put it in by payroll deduction. each month or quarter when you get your statements - BURN THEM UNOPENED. dont open your first one till the week you retire. then hire a professional to unscrew the distribution issues. finally, don't die or become disabled, or need professional nursing care until after you retire.

Two things he missed.

In the preface I would have the following. If your AGI restricts you from contributing to a ROTH than you would almost unquestionably benefit from acquiring a professional.

You need to open your statements once a year. While I do not believe in re-balancing index funds by means of selling the “run ups”. I do need to see my allocation so I know where to put the current year’s contributions.

Here's a question (forgive me if it has been posted, but I do not remember seeing it):

If your AGI prevents you from contributing to a Roth IRA, is it safe to assume you cannot rollover 401(k)-type accounts into a Roth as well?

Thanks!

The income level cut-off for a conversion to a Roth is even lower than the phase-out level for a contribution, currently. The law is scheduled to eliminate the conversion income limitation provision in 2010 (if it survives until then).

That's not good, but helps answer another question I asked on another thread awhile back:

"What are the main benefits of taking a loss on a loser stock/fund?"

$3,000 in stock losses can be used to lower one's AGI (if you happen to be right at the cut-off). So, dependant on your tax bracket, you can save 10-25% of the $3,000 loss ($300-750) and then rollover (if available) $3000 into a Roth rollover IRA (of course, you would then have to realize those tax-deferred gains). It ain't much, but it helps soothe the pain of a capital loss. $3,000 extra in a Roth IRA can make you some great long-term, non-taxable gains over the long run.

thanks blank! kind words (and it means a lot coming from you). i kinda see us as a good pair on these boards. you are the kinder, more caring, and patient counterpart to my in-your-face, point blank, take no prisoners and make no friends kind of advice.

jims, i have stated here several times how i find your DIY methodology to be pretty complete. certainly no place for me to criticize. i guess my point in just burning your statements without opening them was focused on not knowing and not caring where and what your dollars are doing. i agree that allocating your investments (especially with new dollars) is a great method. but a person who burned them unopen would still do much better than the average investor.

ie. the less activity in your accounts and between your accounts the better. it will all average itself out eventually.

1MO

ps. great post blixet.