I'm no ardent defender of Suze Orman, but I do think this editorial paints her in an unfairly bad light.
Quote:
|
If you feel the need to impress people with what you have rather than with who you are, you are at high risk for credit card abuse." This from a woman who spends $500,000 a year chartering private jets and who sells "Cruise With Suze" packages on an Italian luxury liner.
|
Take this for example. Yes, spending $500,000 a year would be utterly insane FOR ME, but that's because I'm sure my income is far, far lower than Suze's. So, depending on what her annual earnings is like, perhaps it's not as frivolous as it seems at first glance.
Seems strange to me that the author did not catch this....
Quote:
|
But it is not Suze's hypocrisy or even her intellectual laziness that really bothers me; no, that would be something Suze "loves" called "dollar cost averaging," which involves buying the same stock over and over again as it falls. "It's a great opportunity for you when the value of the shares drops," claims Suze
|
Though I'm no stock guru, I'm trying to figure out what the problem is with this concept? Look, the whole stock market is going down. No sectors are spared. However, within the market, there are STILL good companies out there. And at the same time, we don't know how much it will continue to drop, for how long, and when it will rebound. So, in light of this, why is DCA such a bad idea?
As for bad companies? If they're bad, it doesn't matter how cheap they are. They are never worth it.
Seems strange to me that the author can not grasp the seemingly simple concept of "averaging down".
Quote:
|
"[S]tocks, in my opinion, are the best investment vehicle for the growth of your money over time"—less than 3 percent of Suze's net worth happens to be invested in them. Instead, she's tucked away the vast majority of those royalties ($32 million-plus, after taxes) into insured, government-backed bonds. As she trilled to the New York Times Magazine a couple of years ago, "I have a million dollars in the stock market, because if I lose a million dollars, I don't personally care."
|
If I have $32 million in wealth, then my investment goals and priorities will have changed dramatically. No longer would I be interested in portfolio growth and its associated risks (Why would I? How much more money do I need?), but instead, I would be much more focused on capital preservation (I don't want to lose what I have either.)
Plus, it's also important to note that every individual should be adopting different investment strategies that best suits them. Suze's situation is most certainly different than mine, and is most likely different from the rest of us here as well.
It seems strange to me that the author didn't catch that Suze is in a different financial situation than most of us, and therefore, her portfolio may actually be appropriate for her....
Quote:
|
Suze, my friends, has been lying to us, and we know she knows she's been lying because she herself tells us that she ignores her own advice. (Apparently, it's more important to brag about how many books you've sold than to hang with your peeps.)
|
A biased conclusion based on faulty logic. I've watched her shows on many occasions, and for the most part, she seems to impart decent advice. Oh, sure, her personality rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but we're not asking for her hand in marriage, are we? No, we're asking her for financial advice. And you know what? Some people really are dense out there. Some people really do need a person like Suze to just come straight out and say to them, "No no no!"
If you don't like her and she irritates you, that's one thing. But to say that she's a liar, a sham, and a hypocrite? That I'd have to disagree. And for that matter, this is one of the worst editorials I've read in a long time.