# Suzy Orman's financial do's and don'ts



## Catlady (Jan 14, 2020)

I agree with most, except #16, I buy new cars but keep them for more than a decade, I think it's worth it.   Four of my five autos were brand new, the first was used and a lemon.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/suze-orman-says-worst-money-144126938.html


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 14, 2020)

Didn't she get in trouble for some kind of credit card scam she was running?


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 14, 2020)

Catlady said:


> I agree with most, except #16, I buy new cars but keep them for more than a decade, I think it's worth it.   Four of my five autos were brand new, the first was used and a lemon.
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/suze-orman-says-worst-money-144126938.html


 I haven't read your link yet but I agree about the cars....


----------



## Catlady (Jan 14, 2020)

RadishRose said:


> Didn't she get in trouble for some kind of credit card scam she was running?


Oh, I didn't hear about that, will have to google it.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jan 14, 2020)

It makes for interesting reading but I don't agree with all of her advice and I view her more as an entertainer than as a financial advisor.

I learned quite a bit from the FIRE folks and the FIRE calculator.

https://www.firecalc.com/
I have to admit that I was a failure and didn't actually stop working until I turned 51.

IMO we should take the time to read and listen to everything that we can about retirement finances and then select the information that makes sense for our personal situation.


----------



## Uptosnuff (Jan 14, 2020)

Some of these I totally agree with, some I totally disagree with and some I had to laugh at.  "Don't be too quick to buy and house", "Don't become a landlord."  

I did both of these.  Bought my first house when I was 21 and I'm currently a landlord.  Both of these have stood me in good stead through the years.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 14, 2020)

@Uptosnuff -  I mostly agree.  I was a landlord for most of my adult life, since I was 23.  It's a good way to make money, and not painful if you get good tenants, but some of them are the pits.  I owned multi family houses, where I rented one unit and lived rent free in the other unit.   I stopped when I retired and now just own my single family home.  I prefer owning stocks, you can sell the losers and the winners instantly, no waiting months or even years to get rid of them, and no bad-tenant headaches. 

 Of course, you can still own properties without the tenant headaches by hiring a management company.  This is what one of the posters in the article had to say =
"Is she saying don't invest in real estate or become a landlord? There is a difference. I invest in real estate but hire a property management company to deal with the tenants. My rental portfolio out performs my stocks when you factor in cash flow, forced appreciation and tax benefits. I think owning tangible real estate is important for a well rounded portfolio. "


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 14, 2020)

*We also own 2 properties of which we rent out but we use a  lettings and management agency. *


----------



## Catlady (Jan 14, 2020)

Another way of investing in real estate is by buying REITS (real estate investment trusts), which is a form of stock, ETFs.  I own 3 and they pay good dividends.  The trick is to buy them during economic downturns when the shares are low.  I own Vanguard's VNQ reit and real estate etfs RWX and PEAK (nursing homes etc for the aged).  And I don't have to put up with tenants or pay for a management agency.


----------



## Lc jones (Jan 14, 2020)

I disagree about number 6 and number 12 other than that she’s pretty right on.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 14, 2020)

Lc jones said:


> I disagree about number 6 and number 12 other than that she’s pretty right on.


I agree with you.  One should retire as soon as possible, UNLESS you love your job so much that you would be unhappy not doing it.  

I retired at 63.  One guy that worked at my company retired at 65 and died one month after retiring.  You don't know how long you'll live, and lots of people die before they hit 70.  As far as the money angle goes, this is what one of the posters said =

" Seems like decent advice, EXCEPT for taking social security early.* If you start taking it at 70, and somebody else started at 62. It would take you until age 80+ to make up the difference that you lost. In other words, both you and the guy who took his at 62 will have received the same amount of money at age 80. *Average life span is under 80, so chances are you will not see any benefits, meanwhile, the guy who started getting his at 62, got 8 more years to enjoy his or her money. "


----------



## Lc jones (Jan 14, 2020)

Catlady said:


> I agree with you.  One should retire as soon as possible, UNLESS you love your job so much that you would be unhappy not doing it.
> 
> I retired at 63.  One guy that worked at my company retired at 65 and died one month after retiring.  You don't know how long you'll live, and lots of people die before they hit 70.  As far as the money angle goes, this is what one of the posters said =
> 
> " Seems like decent advice, EXCEPT for taking social security early.* If you start taking it at 70, and somebody else started at 62. It would take you until age 80+ to make up the difference that you lost. In other words, both you and the guy who took his at 62 will have received the same amount of money at age 80. *Average life span is under 80, so chances are you will not see any benefits, meanwhile, the guy who started getting his at 62, got 8 more years to enjoy his or her money. "


----------



## gennie (Jan 14, 2020)

Suzy Ormond says a lot and probably earns a lot of money doing it but basically what it all boils down to is.  *Live within your income, no matter what that is *and *invest wisely*


----------



## retiredtraveler (Jan 15, 2020)

RadishRose said:


> Didn't she get in trouble for some kind of credit card scam she was running?


*Suze Orman's Pre-Paid Card Goes Kaput - Clark Howard*


----------



## Uptosnuff (Jan 15, 2020)

Catlady said:


> @Uptosnuff -  I mostly agree.  I was a landlord for most of my adult life, since I was 23.  It's a good way to make money, and not painful if you get good tenants, but some of them are the pits.  I owned multi family houses, where I rented one unit and lived rent free in the other unit.   I stopped when I retired and now just own my single family home.  I prefer owning stocks, you can sell the losers and the winners instantly, no waiting months or even years to get rid of them, and no bad-tenant headaches.
> 
> Of course, you can still own properties without the tenant headaches by hiring a management company.  This is what one of the posters in the article had to say =
> "Is she saying don't invest in real estate or become a landlord? There is a difference. I invest in real estate but hire a property management company to deal with the tenants. My rental portfolio out performs my stocks when you factor in cash flow, forced appreciation and tax benefits. I think owning tangible real estate is important for a well rounded portfolio. "


Cat lady, if you've been a landlord since age 23, you have done very well for yourself.  The longer you have properties, the better.  I wish I had my properties longer than I have, only a few years.  And we are seriously thinking about selling the houses.  Tenants can be a pain in the butt.  My husband wants to try flipping, but I wonder if that ship has sailed to be earning good money at that.  But I'm glad we did the rental thing if only for a few years.  Real estate is a good investment.


----------



## retiredtraveler (Jan 15, 2020)

Catlady said:


> I agree with most, except #16, I buy new cars but keep them for more than a decade, I think it's worth it.   Four of my five autos were brand new, the first was used and a lemon.


I'm an Orman fan. She has basic, often common-sense approaches to all things money. Yes, there are a few things one can argue --- keeping cars, not being a landlord. The not-retiring-early and not-taking-ss-too-soon are always arguable. But, the list in the posting at least gets everyone thinking.


----------



## Catlady (Jan 15, 2020)

Uptosnuff said:


> Cat lady, *if you've been a landlord since age 23, you have done very well for yourself*.  The longer you have properties, the better.  I wish I had my properties longer than I have, only a few years.  And we are seriously thinking about selling the houses.  Tenants can be a pain in the butt.  My husband wants to try flipping, but I wonder if that ship has sailed to be earning good money at that.  But I'm glad we did the rental thing if only for a few years.  Real estate is a good investment.


I've had a few properties but didn't keep them long, I moved around a lot.  I made a profit on some or sold them without a profit just to get rid of them.  The best thing I did was live rent-free on all of them.  I now prefer to invest in real estate with REITs or ETFs, I still have my fingers in real estate but avoid all the nasty headaches.

As to flipping houses, that is good at the beginning of an  up economic cycle, we're overdue for a recession.  Just my opinion here, I'm no expert.


----------



## Liberty (Jan 15, 2020)

Catlady said:


> @Uptosnuff -  I mostly agree.  I was a landlord for most of my adult life, since I was 23.  It's a good way to make money, and not painful if you get good tenants, but some of them are the pits.  I owned multi family houses, where I rented one unit and lived rent free in the other unit.   I stopped when I retired and now just own my single family home.  I prefer owning stocks, you can sell the losers and the winners instantly, no waiting months or even years to get rid of them, and no bad-tenant headaches.
> 
> Of course, you can still own properties without the tenant headaches by hiring a management company.  This is what one of the posters in the article had to say =
> "Is she saying don't invest in real estate or become a landlord? There is a difference. I invest in real estate but hire a property management company to deal with the tenants. My rental portfolio out performs my stocks when you factor in cash flow, forced appreciation and tax benefits. I think owning tangible real estate is important for a well rounded portfolio. "


You can also invest in REITs.


----------



## Jim W. (Jan 15, 2020)

I'm not an Orman fan. 
Most of her advice is just common sense.
I like Clark Howard better.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 17, 2020)

her shows were geared more for her band of financial misfits . there is no advice that is going to be one size fits all . i would watch can i afford it and then turn it off


----------



## retiredtraveler (Jan 17, 2020)

Jim W. said:


> I'm not an Orman fan. Most of her advice is just common sense.  I like Clark Howard better.


It's common sense to some of us. I'm always making snide comments to the wife when I watch Suze on a TV show and I see fellow seniors furiously taking notes for financial facts we knew in our 30's. Financial ignorance is rampant and the major reason so many seniors are going to do badly in retirement. I can't fathom how so many people don't understand compound interest and how not paying a cc off just increases their debt exponentially, for one example.


----------



## Liberty (Jan 17, 2020)

retiredtraveler said:


> It's common sense to some of us. I'm always making snide comments to the wife when I watch Suze on a TV show and I see fellow seniors furiously taking notes for financial facts we knew in our 30's. Financial ignorance is rampant and the major reason so many seniors are going to do badly in retirement. I can't fathom how so many people don't understand compound interest and how not paying a cc off just increases their debt exponentially, for one example.


So very true.  Living right up and over the top of your lifestyle early in life can put you in debt for many years.  Marrying the wrong person can, too...lol.  A Polish neighbor of ours in Cleveland, many years ago told me seriously "young lady remember...start out in a mansion, end up in a bungalow...start out in a bungalow, end up in a mansion."


----------



## Jim W. (Jan 17, 2020)

retiredtraveler said:


> It's common sense to some of us. I'm always making snide comments to the wife when I watch Suze on a TV show and I see fellow seniors furiously taking notes for financial facts we knew in our 30's. Financial ignorance is rampant and the major reason so many seniors are going to do badly in retirement. I can't fathom how so many people don't understand compound interest and how not paying a cc off just increases their debt exponentially, for one example.



It all comes down to self discipline, the ability to tell yourself "no", not allowing the desire for material possessions rule your life and thinking about the future.

I suppose some people just figure they should live for the present and the future be damned, so they spend, spend, spend on things they think make them happy but can't really afford.

Others are content to be happy with simple things and don't need to bolster their self image with new cars, expensive clothes and yearly vacations or cruises to exotic places, etc, etc.

As for Orman, I think she's a self promoter. I hold her in intense disdain and whenever she's on during PBS fund raising drives I steer clear of my local PBS station until it's over.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 18, 2020)

i used to like her mis-information about 401k loans . she used to tell everyone they are double taxed which of course is bull ...  but i guess if it scares her bunch of mis-fits then  she has poetic license to make up stuff .

much of her stuff in not very practical .. she would tell everyone to delay ss to age 70 . which most americans can't afford to do unless they work to 70 or have other means of support  .... which is why only 2% of men and 4% of women take ss at 70 . YOU NEED MONEY TO LAYOUT AND LIVE ON WHEN YOU DELAY . most  Americans don't have that money .


----------



## retiredtraveler (Jan 18, 2020)

mathjak107 said:


> "....much of her stuff in not very practical .. she would tell everyone to delay ss to age 70 . which most americans can't afford to do unless they work to 70 or have other means of support  .... which is why only 2% of men and 4% of women take ss at 70 . YOU NEED MONEY TO LAYOUT AND LIVE ON WHEN YOU DELAY . most  Americans don't have that money .


Well, that's the catch-22.  Most Americans are financially ignorant and never tried to educate themselves. That is what she is trying to do (even if there is some misinformation in her presentations). The thing is, of course, it's really too late if you haven't saved/invested and now find yourself in your 50's and start to wonder if you'll ever retire. I'm sure you've seen articles that state 2/3rds of the population cannot pass a very basic, financial literacy test. Anyway, to me, we boomers  lived in the greatest economic expansion in history which meant enormous opportunities in the stock market, and missed it by putting their money into spending.


----------



## Jim W. (Jan 18, 2020)

mathjak107 said:


> i used to like her mis-information about 401k loans . she used to tell everyone they are double taxed which of course is bull ...  but i guess if it scares her bunch of mis-fits then  she has poetic license to make up stuff .
> 
> much of her stuff in not very practical .. *she would tell everyone to delay ss to age 70 . which most americans can't afford to do unless they work to 70 or have other means of support*  .... which is why only 2% of men and 4% of women take ss at 70 . YOU NEED MONEY TO LAYOUT AND LIVE ON WHEN YOU DELAY . most  Americans don't have that money .



I think that bit of questionable advice was in the article linked in the first post (OP) of this thread. Like you, I couldn't disagree more either. By the time you reach 70, you've gone 8 years not collecting anything when you could have been. I read somewhere that it takes somewhere around 6 years at full benefits, just to catch up to the amount of money you passed on since the age of 62. So now you're 76 years old. If you manage to live to 80 or 82, you didn't end up making that much more than you would have by taking benefits at 62, plus you're too old to enjoy it anyway.

To my way of thinking, the best way to go, is to watch your spending and build up a nice nest egg to supplement your reduced benefits, retire at 62 and enjoy as many of your remaining days as possible, relaxing and being free from the stress and grind of working.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 18, 2020)

Jim W. said:


> I think that bit of questionable advice was in the article linked in the first post (OP) of this thread. Like you, I couldn't disagree more either. By the time you reach 70, you've gone 8 years not collecting anything when you could have been. I read somewhere that it takes somewhere around 6 years at full benefits, just to catch up to the amount of money you passed on since the age of 62. So now you're 76 years old. If you manage to live to 80 or 82, you didn't end up making that much more than you would have by taking benefits at 62, plus you're too old to enjoy it anyway.
> 
> To my way of thinking, the best way to go, is to watch your spending and build up a nice nest egg to supplement your reduced benefits, retire at 62 and enjoy as many of your remaining days as possible, relaxing and being free from the stress and grind of working.


if you are like most who delay ss and are also investors in at least a balanced portfolio and live off your own draw until you file ,  break even is 22 years . that is how long it takes to make up for no checks ,  and spending down money that is either invested or could have been invested if you took ss at 62 . that does not include the fact no spousal can be collected until you file so that extends it out past 22 years


----------



## Jim W. (Jan 18, 2020)

mathjak107 said:


> if you are like most who delay ss and are also investors in at least a balanced portfolio and live off your own draw until you file ,  break even is 22 years . that is how long it takes to make up for no checks ,  and spending down money that is either invested or could have been invested if you took ss at 62 . that does not include the fact no spousal can be collected until you file so that extends it out past 22 years



Exactly three months to the day prior to my 62nd birthday, I went online and applied. 

Glad I did, too. 

Yes, I get a smaller amount, but living within my means has never been a problem for me as it was drilled into my head by my folks. 

My mom, especially.


----------



## StarSong (Jan 18, 2020)

Jim W. said:


> I think that bit of questionable advice was in the article linked in the first post (OP) of this thread. Like you, I couldn't disagree more either. By the time you reach 70, you've gone 8 years not collecting anything when you could have been. I read somewhere that it takes somewhere around 6 years at full benefits, just to catch up to the amount of money you passed on since the age of 62. So now you're 76 years old. If you manage to live to 80 or 82, you didn't end up making that much more than you would have by taking benefits at 62, plus you're too old to enjoy it anyway.
> 
> To my way of thinking, the best way to go, is to watch your spending and build up a nice nest egg to supplement your reduced benefits, retire at 62 and enjoy as many of your remaining days as possible, relaxing and being free from the stress and grind of working.


I have never been a Suze Orman follower.  She wasn't on my radar screen, and what I did hear either didn't resonate or fell under the category of common sense.  

When it came to strategizing how to claim SS, I did massive amounts of online research, read like crazy, and most especially followed the advice offered by Laurence J. Kotlikoff, the longtime SS guru for PBS. His book, _Get What's Yours: The Secrets of Maxing Out Your Social Security Benefits, _offers comprehensive information about the ins and outs of SS. This guy knows whereof he speaks. 

Hubby and I delayed my benefits to 65, he's taking half spousal benefits against my earnings for now, and will file against his benefits when he turns 70. Both of us are from very long-lived parents (the earliest death was at 90-1/2) and other relatives. Chances are therefore excellent that we will come out ahead by delaying his benefits. 

My advice about when to file for SS is for everyone to do plenty of research and get *EXPERT* guidance. SS employees don't qualify as experts, nor does someone's brother-in-law (unless he's a CPA or similar professional), nor do any of us on this forum, including me. 

Decisions about when to claim SS have consequences that affect us for the rest of our lives.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 18, 2020)

StarSong said:


> I have never been a Suze Orman follower.  She wasn't on my radar screen, and what I did hear either didn't resonate or fell under the category of common sense.
> 
> When it came to strategizing how to claim SS, I did massive amounts of online research, read like crazy, and most especially followed the advice offered by Laurence J. Kotlikoff, the longtime SS guru for PBS. His book, _Get What's Yours: The Secrets of Maxing Out Your Social Security Benefits, _offers comprehensive information about the ins and outs of SS. This guy knows whereof he speaks.
> 
> ...



exactly ...this belief that one size fits all that these talking heads try to spew is nonsense


----------



## Jim W. (Jan 18, 2020)

mathjak107 said:


> exactly ...this belief that one size fits all that these talking heads try to spew is nonsense



Ya gotta do what fits best for you.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jan 29, 2020)

Most of it is sound advice. I used to disagree with the prevailing advice by financial advisors to not take SS at 62.  That's the age I took mine for a couple of reasons.  Now I somewhat agree with waiting because the 22 - 23% cut that's been all but promised by 2034 will take a healthy chunk of what people would have originally gotten. Add the medicare premiums and SS payments will take a huge hit.

I also disagree with not retiring too early.  For some, like myself, it's quite feasible to do so.  And not selling a stock...well sometimes it's necessary.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 29, 2020)

i would never plan around the supposed ss cut ...  like everything we do in this country , in the 11th hour it will be funded ...  you see how fast they come up with billions for soy beans and wars .....   something as important as ss would be fully funded ..

that does not mean that ages for fra may not be pushed out or payroll taxes won't go up , both are likely to happen . medicare is a different story and that will always see attrition in benefits for all of us as well as increases in our costs .


----------



## JB in SC (Jan 30, 2020)

Frankly, I plan for a cut in SS at some point. Medicare as well. That's why I never intended  to depend on SS for my future. As far as Orman, she sells books etc. I prefer to get advice from a CFP with fiduciary responsibility (along with some common sense), not some "celebrity" that has no interest in my success personally.


----------



## treeguy64 (Jan 30, 2020)

I went to school with Susie (before her affected "Suze.")  Her dad started Chicken Delight, and we used to order it on weekends, as a treat. 

He taught her the value of money: When his shop burned down, he ran back in to rescue...... the register! It was burning hot, and scarred him, for life! He did get it out, as I recall. 

Suze saved me a ton of money when she advised folks to bail on the market, in '08, right before the crash. We saw each other in Austin, later, before she took the stage at a rally. She didn't remember me, at first, but I said the name of our high school, South Shore, and she got it. 

She certainly succeeded. I can't believe she was knowingly involved in a scam.

At our same high school Mandy Patinkin was there and Charlotte Crossley. I was friends with them, as well. Lots of stories........


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 30, 2020)

treeguy64 said:


> I went to school with Susie (before her affected "Suze.")  Her dad started Chicken Delight, and we used to order it on weekends, as a treat.
> 
> He taught her the value of money: When his shop burned down, he ran back in to rescue...... the register! It was burning hot, and scarred him, for life! He did get it out, as I recall.
> 
> ...


Her dad worked in a chicken factory ..chicken delight was started by al tunic


----------



## treeguy64 (Jan 30, 2020)

mathjak107 said:


> Her dad worked in a chicken factory ..chicken delight was started by al tunic


Nah, not the way I was told. Maybe it was an urban legend. Her dad also had Morry's Deli, as I recall, and went on to open a number of them in Chicago. Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

Like I said: (From an in-depth article about Suze. It goes along with what I thought I knew. Morry may not have started Chicken Delight, but he had the one we' ordered from.)

"Here are a few important things you should know about Suze and where her obsessional battle with debt began.

First, you should know that she grew up in Chicago and that her father, Morry Orman, ran a takeout chicken shack, and that on the day that it burned down, a 14-year-old Suze (then Susie--in the 1970s she changed the spelling but kept the pronunciation) watched him run back inside to rescue a scalding metal cash register. After that Morry started a boarding house, and a tenant fell off a rickety staircase and sued the family for everything it had. "From then on," she says, "everything my father did turned to dust."

That childhood experience helps explain Suze Orman's passion--why, at 52, she's still willing to ride 1,250 miles in a bus across America to crusade "

Cool, I wasn't dreaming things up!


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 30, 2020)

treeguy64 said:


> Nah, not the way I was told. Maybe it was an urban legend. Her dad also had Morry's Deli, as I recall, and went on to open a number of them in Chicago. Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.


I can’t imagine her not ever saying a thing about that ....I would need to see that documented somewhere before I would accept that as fact


----------



## treeguy64 (Jan 30, 2020)

mathjak107 said:


> I can’t imagine her not ever saying a thing about that ....I would need to see that documented somewhere before I would accept that as fact


How's this, man:

http://www.morrysdeli.com/aboutus.html
That was before Chicken Delight burned down, if Suze's age is correct in that article. Things don't add up......


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 30, 2020)

treeguy64 said:


> How's this, man:
> 
> http://www.morrysdeli.com/aboutus.html


I was talking about being the founder of chicken delight


----------



## treeguy64 (Jan 30, 2020)

Her dad started the Chicken Delight in South Shore. I never said he founded the company.

In the end, the math doesn't stack up on his deli and when the chicken shack burned down. I lived four short blocks from that tiny storefront deli. I may have seen Suze in there, a few times. Long time ago, who cares?.........


----------



## Jim W. (Jan 31, 2020)

treeguy64 said:


> Her dad started the Chicken Delight in South Shore. I never said he founded the company.
> 
> In the end, the math doesn't stack up on his deli and when the chicken shack burned down. I lived four short blocks from that tiny storefront deli. I may have seen Suze in there, a few times. Long time ago, who cares?.........



Did she... "prefer the company" of females back then, too?


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 31, 2020)

That is a fantasy I prefer to skip lol


----------



## treeguy64 (Jan 31, 2020)

Jim W. said:


> Did she... "prefer the company" of females back then, too?


Most definitely. It was very obvious.


----------



## StarSong (Feb 1, 2020)

Jim W. said:


> Did she... "prefer the company" of females back then, too?


Wow.  Because this matters.  Not.


----------



## Jim W. (Feb 1, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Wow.  Because this matters.  Not.



Never said it did.

Just curious.


----------

