If You Knew Suze Like We Know Suze, You wouldn’t listen to her advice

[jeffrey]

How a bottle-blond former waitress and self-described "55-year-old virgin" with a taste for the good life became the financial messiah for millions of Americans might be a fun Lifetime original movie. Why the masses continue to invest their faith in Suze Orman in the wake of a financial meltdown she never saw coming is a more timely question. The answer is complicated.

If you've managed to avoid Orman over the past decade, you don't watch Oprah, CNBC, or PBS, and you've probably never entered an airport bookstore, where her toothy, cougarlike visage graces the covers of numerous best-sellers, the latest of which, 2009 Action Plan, has more than 1 million copies in print and has, according to her publisher, been downloaded 2.2 million times at suzeorman.com. There, you might also be convinced to open an Orman-sponsored TD Ameritrade brokerage account or buy one of the products that she also sells on QVC, including: the Suze Orman FICO Kit Platinum Version w/Action Planner ($47.70); the Suze Orman Identity Theft Protection Kit w/Anti-Spyware ($39.78); and Suze Orman's Organize and Protect Financial System ($66 plus S&H; Easy Pay! Installment plan available)...

If You Knew Suze Like We Know Suze | The Big Money

[workingmamma]

So what do you recommend?

[MonkeyMama]

I don't buy it. Sure, there are plenty of people who are in dire straits who need more help than Suze can give.

BUT her "Can I Afford it" Segment would not be so popular if so many people would actually live within their means or could grasp what they can or can not afford.

I live in a city full of people who bought things with phantom equity because "they deserved it." Just about everyone I know lives a lifestyle more lavish than they can afford. I mean, they whine how they can't pay their bills while driving off in their new SUVs, literally. If more people had listened to Suze we wouldn't be in quite the mess we are in today.

[Broken Arrow]

I'm no ardent defender of Suze Orman, but I do think this editorial paints her in an unfairly bad light.

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....

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".

"[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....

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.

[simpleyme]

people often hate on successful people ;-) especially the rich

I like Suze and watch her show I rarely agree with her advice

I am a Dave Ramsey fan and I do not think anyone is more hated on than DR ,people hate the idea of financial gurus getting rich and spending money

who would listen financial advice from a broke person?

[EEinNJ]

I think she teaches basic financial literacy, coming from an emotional basis, to people who otherwise would not be receptive or simply wouldn't get it. I've read a couple of her books, seen her on TV occasionally. Nothing new there for me. I would draw a distinction between personal finance advice and investing advice. Investing is something that should come after you have things like debt, income, and spending under control.

I would not take her investing advice, partly because she parrots assumptions and strategies that don't necessarily work any more. As others have pointed out, she does not take her own advice, but a rich, middle aged lesbian is going to have much different goals than her target audience. The critique in that link was a bit harsh, though

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by simpleyme

who would listen financial advice from a broke person?

Great point!

[EEinNJ]

There's a columnist on CBS MarketWatch, Dr. Irwin Kellner, an economist and college professor, seemingly a real brain. I recently found out he's suing Bernie Madoff, he lost 6 million bucks investing with him. Perhaps he listened to Suze Orman and believed he could make 11% a year!
My point is, advice from a rich person may not be any better than from a broke person!

[simpleyme]

Originally Posted by EEinNJ

My point is, advice from a rich person may not be any better than from a broke person!

LOL point taken! I have started a running program so instead of taking advice from runners I will start asking couch potatoes for running tips!
as none of the couch potatoes have ever sustained running injuries unlike some of the runners I have talked to;-)

[cptacek]

What is it with bashing people who have money who use private jets to get where they need to go? Thanks to the rampant bashing by congress and the media and bloggers and average Americans scaring people who do have money to not buy planes, I got laid off from my job at an aircraft company this week. Thanks a lot.

[sweeps]

Very sorry to hear, cptacek. I hope you find a new job soon.

[Hot dog]

I am so sorry to hear that. it is my worst nightmare at least these days. Let us know how it goes.

[Broken Arrow]

Yes, I'm sorry to hear that. Hope things turn around for you soon!

[cptacek]

Yeah, I've been avoiding posting on my blog for a while now, because things haven't been going well in the past few weeks, and truth be told, I feel a bit ashamed about being jobless. At least I get the WARN pay (60 days of pay) and a severance package, plus all my vacation, so I'll effectively get paid until June. But, I have to find something between now and then.

[Broken Arrow]

I don't think there is any shame in that. You are just as intelligent and capable as before, and the circumstances are entirely external.

Say, didn't you mention one time that you guys are working on a farm and you wanted to move on to farming anyways?

[workingmamma]

What kind of work are you looking for? Maybe if farming is what you do and like you could do that and another part time job along with your severence until you can get on your feet with farming. I use a great database that has thousands of leads so depending on what you are looking for I think you might like this database too.

[Aleta]

Hope that things look up for you soon.

I was amazed that Congress was asking the CEO's to raise their hands if they had a company jet. All but 1 raised their hands.

The hypocrisy of the question is that the speaker (Nancy Pelosi) has her own jet and larger than the former speaker.

Maybe we should cap congress's salary because they haven't been exactly successful at their jobs.

Success is different to each person you are looking at and comparing. Suze gives advice, teaches, and sells books. She gives a good service to women who maybe don't feel impowered to run their own finances.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Pelosi does not own a jet. She does ride in one. Use of a military jet to transport the Speaker of the House between Washington and their home state began as a security measure after 9-11. The purpose was to protect the Constitutional successor to the presidency. Speaker of the House Hastert was next in line after Cheney, just as now Pelosi is next in line after Biden. (She was next in line after Cheney for months before the change of administration, of course.) The military air transport began with Hastert, and now Pelosi is the second Speaker of the House to have it.

I don't know beans about jets, so I cannot tell you whether the jet Pelosi is given protective transport in is "big, bigger, or biggest." What makes a jet "bigger" anyway? The number of passenger seats it has? Whether it is equipped with a bar or toilet? The number of engines? The power of the engines? The speed it can achieve?

My understanding is that the Air Force has said that winter trips in the jet they had used to take Hastert to Illinois could be less secure when taking the new Speaker of the House to California because winter headwinds could mean that more fuel than the plane can carry is needed. This could make needing to stop for fuel necessary. That was never an issue when they only had to fly to Illinois, not to California. The Air Force has recommended that a bigger jet be used in winter in case of winter headwinds....So maybe that is where the idea of Pelosi having a bigger jet comes from. At any rate, I would guess that the Air Force is pretty good at knowing what is necessary to protect their jets (and humans in them!) and that being on the ground with a Speaker of the House may be seen as riskier than being in the air with her. They did, in fact, keep the president in the air as much as possible on 9-11. I'm sure it is all protocol that was thought through years ago, but only extended down to the Speaker of the House when it became clear that, yes, Washington DC really could be hit by terrorists.

[Aleta]

It was also said that this jet could hold more members of the Pelosi family. That's why she needed a larger jet. My point is that CEO' s have their own important business trips. I personally think that they all should tone down their expenses, including Congress.

[disneysteve]

I think all the anger and disgust aimed at the rich is misplaced and little more than jealousy. If someone has worked hard (or even if they haven't worked all that hard) and made a ton of money, good for them. Let them spend it however they see fit. If they want to buy a private jet, that doesn't bother me a bit. They can afford it. I can't. Just because some auto worker in Detroit gets laid off doesn't mean some multi-millionaire in LA should sell his mansion and move into Section 8 housing. In fact, since our economy is so dependent on consumer spending, if the rich stop spending their millions we'd be in even worse shape than we already are. These folks can spend more in a day than I spend in a year. They do the economy a whole lot more good than I do.